Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Latest News

Blue states blasted for funneling millions in SNAP cash for fast-food meals

No Comments

U.S. taxpayers are footing nearly $250 million a year in SNAP benefits spent on fast-food meals across just nine states, most of which are blue states, according to Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst.

Nine states, including Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia — all of which are Democrat-run states except for Virginia — are opted into a SNAP program called the Restaurant Meals Program (RMP), which has spent nearly $250 million a year on hot meals, including fast-food, Ernst’s office found. 

The modern day Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was established in 1964 under the Food Stamps Act to provide basic food needs such as meats and fruits and vegetables to financially vulnerable Americans. Hot foods or foods ready for immediate consumption were not eligible for purchase under the program as its main mission was to provide staple foods to be prepared at home. 

A 1977 loophole, however, allowed states to opt into a program called the Restaurant Meals Program, which was established to allow homeless individuals who do not have a kitchen to purchase prepared meals using SNAP benefits, according to Ernst’s office. The eligibility for the program expanded in the following years to include disabled individuals, the elderly and their spouses, according to the office. 

Nine states are opted into the program, which requires participating restaurants to sign an agreement with the state that is then authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the SNAP program writ large. Restaurants that participate in the program were historically a small group but have since expanded, most notably in California in the Biden era, Ernst’s office said. 

California expanded its program statewide, for example, in 2021 that allowed restaurants to accept CalFresh benefits via SNAP at a swath of top fast-food chains stretching from McDonald’s to Domino’s Pizza to Jack in the Box. 

Ernst’s office found that from June 2023 to May 2025, more than $475 million in taxpayer dollars funded Restaurant Meals Program meals at fast-food establishments. During that same time period, $524 million in taxpayer funds were spent through the Restaurant Meals Program overall, meaning California accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s total Restaurant Meals Program funds from June 2023 to May 2025, according to the office. 

‘The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition not nuggets with a side of fries,’ Ernst told Fox News Digital. ‘I wish I was McRibbing you but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’

The data found that between June 2023 and May 2025 $41.4 million funds went through Restaurant Meals Program in Arizona, $3.6 million in New York, $1.3 million in Michigan, $995,900 in Rhode Island, $649,000 in Massachusetts, $479,000 in Illinois, $308,500 in Virginia and $8,600 in Maryland. 

Ernst’s introduced legislation Thursday, dubbed the McSCUSE ME Act, to rein in the scope of the Restaurant Meals Program. Specifically, the bill would continue allowing homeless, elderly and disabled individuals to continue using the program, but ending spousal eligibility. 

The legislation also would reel in which vendors are able to participate in the program, specifically restricting fast-food vendors in favor of grocery stores that have hot bars to better ensure availability of healthy prepared food options. The legislation would also require states to produce public annual reports showing how many vendors participate in the Restaurant Meals Program, the number of participating beneficiaries and total costs for the program, Fox News Digital learned. 

The report and legislation comes after the U.S. government just emerged from the longest government shutdown in history, at 43 days, that included putting the food assistance program under heightened scrutiny over fraud and concern as recipients saw disruptions to their access. 

Upon the reopening of the government, the Trump administration is requiring all SNAP beneficiaries to reapply for the program in an effort to prevent fraud. 

Federal spending on SNAP overall climbed to record highs under the Biden administration, Fox News Digital previously reported, at $128 billion in 2021 and $127 billion in 2022 during the pandemic. By the Biden administration’s final year, SNAP cost $99.8 billion.

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Trump secures release of American trapped in Saudi Arabia for years over online posts

No Comments

A U.S. citizen jailed in Saudi Arabia for criticizing the royal family online was freed Wednesday by Saudi authorities, ending a four-year ordeal in the country, according to media reports.

Saad Almadi’s release came just a day after President Donald Trump met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Washington, D.C., per the New York Post.

Almadi, 75, a retired engineer and U.S. resident since 1976, was detained in 2021 during a family visit to Riyadh and later sentenced to more than 19 years in prison on terrorism charges tied to a series of posts online.

The charges were reduced to cyber crimes, and although he was released from prison in 2023, Almadi was held in the country under an exit ban which prevented him from going back home to the U.S.

The Almadi family issued a statement Wednesday celebrating the good news and thanking Trump.

‘Our family is overjoyed that, after four long years, our father, Saad Almadi, is finally on his way home to the United States!’ they said.

‘This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.’

A third portion of the statement expressed appreciation to others who had supported the case over the years.

‘We extend our thanks to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh for keeping our father safe, and to the nonprofit organizations and members of Congress who fought for his freedom,’ the statement read.

Almadi’s case also drew attention from human rights groups and U.S. lawmakers after he was accused of terrorism over 14 social media posts.

One suggested that a street in Washington be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

U.S. pressure to lift Almadi’s exit ban had also intensified since Trump’s May visit to Saudi Arabia.

The president’s national security advisor, Sebastian Gorka, also met with Almadi’s son at the White House.

The Foley Foundation, which advocates for Americans detained overseas, praised the news Wednesday, saying it was ‘so excited’ the family’s fight had finally succeeded.

Per reports, Almadi was flying to the U.S. from Riyadh on Wednesday, according to his family, after Trump and the crown prince set foot on stage at a forum in Washington.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Sebastian Gorka, the Department of State and The White House for comment.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Economy

The Southern Conservative Who Warned Against Authoritarian Temptation

No Comments

The modern American right could stand to gain from the insight of Richard M. Weaver. Weaver, a twentieth-century conservative of the Southern tradition, perceived the dangers of radical ideologies as well as the extent to which American thinking offered a viable alternative. Amid the disagreements and controversies of our present moment, today’s various libertarians, conservatives, classical liberals, and others are in need of clear thinking about our own ideas as well as those of our opponents. As such, we might learn from Weaver’s powerful dissections of authoritarianism. 

A key component of Weaver’s philosophy was a recognition of the natural distinctions of individuals within society, what might also be termed “social bond” individualism. As the revolutionary movements of the twentieth century demonstrated through both communism and fascism, the overruling of this human basis was a harbinger of immense danger to the freedom of individuals and the natural order of their civilization. However, Weaver explained how, according to its largely Jeffersonian principles, the American South perceived the threat of these destructive movements sooner and more substantively than other regions.  

In a 1944 essay entitled “The South and the Revolution of Nihilism,” Weaver laid out the reasons why fascism was (and still is) fundamentally opposed to the genuine traditions of American thought and society. He argued that fascism was at its core a revolutionary break with the Enlightenment ideas that had themselves transformed much of the Western world, especially since the French Revolution. Since, in his view, the South never fully entered the French Revolutionary schema of breaking down all social distinctions and “deep-rooted traditions,” fascism was rightly perceived not as a restoration of lost principles, but as societal upheaval.  

Weaver contended that the American South, never having wholly embraced the leveling forces of the Enlightenment, stood rooted in its own history, which it had “learned the hard way.” He depicted the region and its society as being composed of individuals who operated within a unique sense of spontaneous customs and social bonds to one another. Fascism, by contrast, was understood as a movement destructive of society’s natural structure and instead tended towards the “substitution of the formless mass manipulated by a group of Machiavellians.” This distinction meant that fascism was a malignant and incompatible force not to be trifled with or appeased, despite the wishful efforts of many in the West. 

What was really at issue during the Second World War, according to Weaver, was a foundational conflict between traditional arrangements developed from the bottom-up versus regimented structures imposed upon society from the top-down. Centralization meant an alliance between the “mass” and a single dictatorial leader, a stark contrast to the decentralized approach with its roots in local authority and individualism. Seeing fascism as the “extreme proletarian nihilism” that it was, Weaver perceived “that the promise of fascism to restore the ancient virtues is counteracted by this process, and that the denial of an ethical basis for the state means the loss of freedom and humanity.” Despite the fascists’ claims of returning to lost traditions, Weaver and other Southerners understood that the heavily centralized nature of fascist regimes negated the spontaneous orders people develop within society. In essence, fascism may give lip service to traditional social arrangements, but it is at its core revolutionary because it seeks to impose an order, rather than being born out of a pre-existing order. 

Having described fascism as the authoritarian concoction that it was, Weaver likewise held no illusions about the other revolutionary system of the twentieth century, communism. In his excellent 1957 article, “Life Without Prejudice,” Weaver skewered the Marxist tactic of sowing seeds for a Utopia that never blooms. He noted how communists recognized that to implement their own dogmatic vision of the world, they must first clear away the existing society, one pillar at a time. Whether playing upon public resentment about the “existence of rich men,” or “the right to acquire and use property privately,” or some other issue, communists seek to “vilify this as founded upon ‘prejudice.’” It was, in effect, a nihilistic strategy for implementing their own prejudices.  

While the term “prejudice” has lost its regularity in conversation since Weaver’s time, it is not difficult to see the same strategy at play in modern discourse. There are numerous examples in recent years of people being pilloried as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “antisemitic,” or various other “prejudices” which supposedly negate argument and justify cancellation or worse. As Weaver made clear, this is the communist deconstruction tactic at work once more. This strategy is crucial for wannabe tyrants, who must first defeat the existing society before ushering in their own manufactured one, imposed from above, much like fascism. They must inspire skepticism about the current order by oversimplifying everything as arising from malicious “prejudices” held by their opponents.   

Instead, Weaver noted the natural role of prejudice, rightly understood, in individual thinking and personality. He explained that not every aspect of an individual’s thoughts and actions could be verified by a mountain of facts or logic. In contrast to the radicals who claimed objective certainty about what’s best for everyone, “The man who frankly confesses to his prejudices is usually more human and more humane. He adjusts amicably to the idea of his limitations. A limitation once admitted is a kind of monition not to try acting like something superhuman. The person who admits his prejudices, which is to say his unreasoned judgments, has a perspective on himself.” This perception is a meaningful counter to the moral framework of communism because it elevates humility above ideological presumption; it is an endorsement of genuine principles over presuppositions.  

Ultimately, Richard Weaver presented insightful arguments for rejecting the devastating radicalisms of his era. It would stand to reason, then, that in our own uneasy era we too could gain by understanding the alternative he championed. 

To reject the upheavals offered by communism and fascism, the American right must instead reinforce its principles by embracing its vast intellectual tradition. We can reaffirm our commitments to liberty and order while so many others give way to the siren songs of centralized collectivism, whether fascist, communist, or otherwise. The stringencies of ideology ultimately impair our sense of humanity and can justify disastrous outcomes, as the history of the twentieth century attests. As Weaver put it, we must recognize that schemes for “a life without prejudice” are as inhuman and destructive as the life pursued strictly for the “satisfaction of physical man.” 

by
Read More
In Economy

To Make Luxury Affordable, Embrace Consumer Choice

No Comments

What kind of goods and experiences comprise a “normal life”? In 1900, Henry George thought millionaires lived abnormally because they had telephones in their bedrooms. Looking back, it’s remarkable how quickly the abnormal becomes ordinary. Today, even the poorest people — not only in rich countries but also in developing ones — carry a phone (which does much more than ring) in their pocket.

From Luxuries to Necessities 

That’s one of the miracles of the free market. French sociologist Gabriel Tarde noticed that forks and spoons were once luxuries reserved for the elite, but by his time had become universal. Ludwig von Mises drew inspiration from Tarde’s insight, calling it one of capitalism’s greatest virtues: the transformation of luxuries into necessities. “What was once a luxury becomes in the course of time a necessity,” he wrote. In Mises’s view, this is the inherent tendency of capitalism — to shorten that time lag and make the luxurious accessible to the masses. One might add that in socialist economies, the opposite happens: necessities become luxuries.

But this transformation is only possible through freedom — the freedom of consumers to experiment with new products, and of producers to innovate and take risks. On the supply side, the liberty of entrepreneurs and capitalists to test new methods of production — even when those methods appear “unjust” or “wasteful” at first — opens the door for millions to enjoy the fruits of innovation. As F. A. Hayek put it, capitalism enables “experimentation with a style of living that will eventually be available to many.”

Yet supply is only half the story. Consumers play an equally vital role. Mises called capitalism the sovereignty of the consumers. And yet, in recent years, a “war on consumers” has emerged from both the left and the right.

The War on Consumers

Five months ago, Donald Trump, defending his trade war with China, remarked, “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of thirty dolls.” On the other side, Bernie Sanders has declared that we “don’t need 23 choices of deodorant or 18 choices of sneakers when kids are going hungry.” 

In both cases, ordinary consumers — those walking through Walmart comparing groceries or choosing between brands — are portrayed as the problem. “Why do you need thirty dolls?” they ask. “Why twenty-three deodorants?”

This disdain for consumer choice has deep intellectual roots — not just in populist rhetoric but in academia. From Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption to John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Affluent Society, many thinkers have looked down on consumer tastes. Galbraith once dismissed American cars as “big, ungainly, [and] unfunctional.” But ugly by whose standard? Dysfunctional according to what measure? The essence of the free market is that consumers decide for themselves — and the normative defense of this system is straightforward: individuals know their own interests better than any politician or professor.

Critics — from Veblen to Marxists who claim capitalists “manufacture” desires — forget what liberal economists understood well: that consumption in a modern economy is not merely about survival, but experience. We don’t just buy things to use them; we buy them to experience them. Marketing, far from being pure manipulation, is part of that experience. Buying a perfume endorsed by your favorite celebrity is not just about smelling pleasant — it’s about identity, aspiration, and emotion. Because preferences are subjective, it’s meaningless to draw a hard line between “needs” and “wants.” Who could have predicted that humanity “needed” airplanes or automobiles before they existed?

Through trial and error, consumers discover what they value. There is no objective measure of “need.” In fact, the unpredictability of human desire is itself a defense of the free market: we need its discovery process to learn what tomorrow’s needs will be. What looks like frivolous consumption today often becomes the gateway for widespread prosperity tomorrow.

Critics of marketing also ignore basic business logic. Which is easier for a firm: to spend vast sums inventing a new “need” and then developing a product for it, or simply to observe what people already want and produce accordingly? The latter is common sense. Marketing’s informative function is often overlooked; if it were purely deceptive, businesses would have little incentive to rely on it. Real profits come from loyal, long-term customers — something deception cannot buy.

As the economist Stanley Lebergott once wrote, “It is an unacknowledged excellence of modern economics that its foundations are pitched on the sands of human desire.” Modern economies achieve miracles not through the commands of kings or planners, but through individuals pursuing their own interests — and that is a virtue, not a sin. 

This “unacknowledged excellence” is the moral beauty of the liberal market order: where consumers are free to choose, society has no forced mission — and yet it prospers precisely because of that freedom.

by
Read More
In Investing

Barrick Faces Activist Pressure After Elliott Takes Major Stake

No Comments

Elliott Investment Management has reportedly taken a large stake in Barrick Mining (TSX:ABX,NYSE:B), the Financial Times reported on Tuesday (November 18), adding activist pressure to the gold producer, which is already dealing with escalating operational problems and a leadership shakeup.

The moves comes just weeks after the abrupt September exit of former CEO Mark Bristow, and as Barrick’s new chief executive, Mark Hill, begins overhauling the company’s regional structure.

In an internal memo seen by Bloomberg, Hill said Barrick will fold its Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic into its North American division and merge its Latin America and Asia Pacific operations to improve performance.

Elliott’s investment also comes during a challenging phase for Barrick.

The company has been hit by rising costs at key North American assets and the loss of its most profitable operation, the Loulo-Gounkoto mine in Mali, after the military junta seized control earlier this year.

The dispute, which was tied to Mali’s new mining tax code, resulted in 3 metric tons of gold being taken by the state and the detention of four Barrick employees. The asset loss also triggered a roughly US$1 billion writeoff.

The setbacks have left Barrick trailing behind its peers despite a powerful gold price rally. Company shares are up 117 percent in the past year, compared with an average 130 percent gain among major rivals.

Barrick’s performance has company executives weighing their options.

As mentioned, a split into two companies is being considered. Four people told Reuters that this could involve one firm focused on North America and another holding assets in Africa and Asia. Another option would involve selling Barrick’s Africa portfolio outright, along with the Reko Diq project in Pakistan once financing is secured.

Barrick is also trying to resolve its dispute with Mali before pursuing a sale of that operation.

Investors have pushed similar ideas before, but were stifled due to the company’s North American footprint.

The company’s core US asset is Nevada Gold Mines, which it operates in partnership with Newmont (NYSE:NEM,ASX:NEM), and the sentiment has been that “there is not much of value” in Barrick’s remaining mines.

Bloomberg reported last month that Newmont was looking at whether a transaction could give it control of the Nevada operations it shares with Barrick, but discussions have not advanced since then.

Elliott, meanwhile, has a long record of targeting miners, including Anglo American (LSE:AAL,OTCQX:AAUKF) and Kinross Gold (TSX:K,NYSE:KGC), and often pushes for structural changes.

For Barrick, the challenge now is stabilizing its operations, while deciding how far to go with strategic restructuring in today’s historically high gold price environment.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Australia’s Gina Rinehart Now Top MP Materials Shareholder

No Comments

Gina Rinehart, owner and CEO of private Australian mining company Hancock Prospecting, has become the largest shareholder of rare earths company MP Materials (NYSE:MP).

Rinehart’s stake in MP, which she owns via Hancock, now stands at 8.4 percent.

According to Bloomberg, Hancock added 1 million shares to its MP position in the third quarter. After MP’s share price doubled during the period, it became the top holding in Hancock’s portfolio.

MP owns and runs the Mountain Pass rare earths mine in San Bernardino County, California. The mine was revived by MP in 2017 and achieved first rare earths concentrate production in 2018.

In 2024, the company produced a record 45,455 metric tons of rare earth oxides in concentrate, as well as 1,294 metric tons of neodymium-praeseodymium (NdPr) oxide, also a record amount.

Mountain Pass is currently the only operating rare earths mine in the US, and is gaining attention as the US seeks to establish a rare earths supply chain outside of China. In July, the US Department of Defense (DoD) agreed to buy US$400 million worth of preferred stock in the company, a move that MP called a ‘transformational public-private partnership.’

On Wednesday (November 19), MP deepened its DoD relationship with a partnership to establish a joint venture with Saudi Arabian Mining Company (Maaden); together they will develop a rare earths refinery in Saudi Arabia.

‘This agreement will be beneficial to MP and our industry, and it further aligns U.S. and Saudi interests,’ said James Litinsky, MP’s founder, chair and CEO, in a press release shared by the company that day.

‘The formation of the joint venture also underscores MP Materials’ role as an American national champion, and it demonstrates how our fully integrated platform can project U.S. industrial capability abroad.’

Earlier this year, the Trump administration said Dateline Resources’ (ASX:DTR,OTCQB:DTREF) Colosseum mine, located 10 kilometres from Mountain Pass, could continue operations under its existing mine plan.

A bankable feasibility study is currently being completed for Colosseum, and is due for completion in early 2026.

Rinehart’s rare earths investments

Rinehart is the wealthiest person in Australia, holding a net worth of US$23.9 billion.

According to Forbes’ 100 billionaires list, she was the 61st richest person globally as of March 7, 2025.

Besides MP, she is also the largest shareholder of Arafura Rare Earths (ASX:ARU,OTC Pink:ARAFF), with Hancock’s first investment in that company tracing back to December 2022.

On October 29, Arafura said it was conducting a AU$475 million financing to further advance its Nolans project. Nolans is expected to eventually supply approximately 4 percent of the world’s NdPr oxide.

Arafura said Hancock committed AU$125 million to the placement, bringing its stake in the firm to 15.7 percent.

Hancock also holds an interest in Lynas Rare Earths (ASX:LYC,OTCQX:LYSDY), with Rinehart raising her stake in the company to 8.21 percent in January via the purchase of about 10 million shares.

In 2023, Hancock Prospecting was reported to back Brazilian Rare Earths (ASX:BRE,OTCQX:BRELY) before it went public, taking a 5.85 percent stake. Brazilian Rare Earths listed on the ASX in December 2023.

Through Hancock, Rinehart also holds investments in lithium, copper and many more commodities. Click here to read about her mining investments and work in the sector.

Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Aurumin Shareholders and Court Approve Scheme of Arrangement

No Comments

Brightstar Resources Limited (ASX: BTR) (Brightstar or Company) provides the following update on the proposed acquisition of 100% of the fully paid ordinary shares and options in Aurumin Limited (Aurumin) by Brightstar by way of Court-approved share scheme of arrangement (Share Scheme) and option scheme of arrangement (Option Scheme, together the Schemes) under Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Unless otherwise specified, capitalised terms used in this announcement have the same meaning as given in Aurumin’s Scheme Booklet dated 9 October 2025 (Scheme Booklet).

RESULTS OF THE SECOND COURT HEARING

Brightstar is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court) has made orders approving the Schemes under which Brightstar will acquire 100% of the shares of Aurumin and all Aurumin options will be cancelled in exchange for new Brightstar options.

Aurumin intends to lodge an office copy of the Court’s orders with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on Friday, 21 November 2025, at which time the Schemes will become legally effective. Aurumin expects that the ASX will suspend Aurumin shares from trading on the ASX with effect from the close of trading on Friday, 21 November 2025.

SANDSTONE PROJECT UPDATE

  • Brightstar and Aurumin currently have six drilling rigs operating in Sandstone, targeting material Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) growth and infill drilling key deposits to enable an increase in confidence classification
  • Post implementation, the consolidated MRE at Sandstone increases to 2.4Moz @ 1.5g/t Au (pro forma basis with Aurumin)1, with the group total MRE increasing to 3.9Moz @ 1.5g/t Au
  • A Mineral Resource upgrade for Sandstone is targeted for release in 1H CY26 following significant exploration drilling over the past 12 months (+70,000m completed to date)
  • Workstreams proceed on the consolidated Pre-Feasibility Study, with mining engineering, metallurgical, geotechnical, approvals and permitting activities continuing apace to fast-track the eventual development of the Sandstone Gold Project (targeted for FID in 2H CY27)
  • The successful development of Sandstone, in conjunction with the near-term production expansion of Brightstar’s Menzies-Laverton asset base, underpins Brightstar’s aspirational production target of +200,000oz pa.

Brightstar’s Managing Director, Alex Rovira, commented:

“We are delighted to see the overwhelming support from Aurumin securityholders for the Schemes. This is the first time in over a decade the Sandstone Greenstone Belt has been consolidated under one ownership, with production last occurring in Sandstone when the gold price was less than A$1,000/oz.

Despite the limited systematic exploration history as a result of the fragmented ownership, upon completion of the Schemes, Brightstar will emerge with a Mineral Resource of approximately 2.4Moz @ 1.5g/t at the Sandstone Gold Project that is largely constrained within the top 150m from surface. Notably, we see significant potential for Mineral Resource growth following the ~70,000m of drilling already completed in Sandstone by Brightstar, with a targeted ~120,000m of drilling planned for completion prior to the Pre- Feasibility Study targeted for release in mid-2026.

In our view, the Sandstone district potentially represents one of the largest undeveloped gold projects in the WA goldfields in the hands of a junior/emerging company, with the potential for a multi-decade mine life across both open pit and underground operations.

The development of our Menzies, Laverton, and Sandstone Gold Projects is central to delivering on our vision and positioning Brightstar as an emerging mid-tier Western Australian gold producer.”


Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

House votes to repeal controversial Arctic Frost provision from government shutdown bill

No Comments

The House of Representatives unanimously voted against a provision that allows Republican senators whose phone records were seized by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to sue the federal government.

The provision was included in the recently passed bill to end the 43-day government shutdown, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week.

Despite supporters saying the provision is necessary to give senators recourse when the executive branch oversteps its constitutional bounds and reaches into congressional communications, the last-minute inclusion of the measure outraged both Republicans and Democrats, underscoring the ever-present tensions between the House and Senate.

The repeal passed 426 to 0, with 210 Democrats and 216 Republicans in the tally.

Dubbed ‘Requiring Senate Notification for Senate Data,’ the provision would allow senators directly targeted in former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., who was involved in crafting part of the successful funding deal, told Fox News Digital he had even been afraid it could derail the final vote to end the shutdown.

‘It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge,’ Cole said. ‘It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either: leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.’

It was placed into the bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sources confirmed to Fox News Digital last week.

Thune put the provision into the bill at the request of members of the Senate GOP, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News Digital, which included Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. 

It was a big point of contention when the House Rules Committee met to prepare the legislation for a final vote last Tuesday night. Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, Austin Scott, R-Ga., and Morgan Griffith, R-Va., all shared House Democrats’ frustration with the measure, but they made clear it would not stand in the way of ending what had become the longest shutdown in history.

Even Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared blindsided by the move.

‘I had no prior notice of it at all,’ Johnson told reporters last week. ‘I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.’

Those Republicans agreed with the motivations behind their Senate counterparts wanting to sue but bristled over the notion that it would come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital the senators ‘have been wronged, no doubt in my mind’ but added its scope was too narrow.

‘This provision does not allow other Americans to pursue a remedy. It does not even allow the President of the United States, who was equally wrongfully surveilled and pursued by the Justice Department — they didn’t even include President Trump in this,’ Rose said.

And while several senators who would be eligible for the taxpayer-funded lawsuits have distanced themselves from the issue amid uproar, others have stuck to their guns.

‘My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue,’ Graham said on ‘Hannity’ Tuesday night. He said he would be seeking ‘tens of millions of dollars.’

Cruz also told Fox News Digital that he did not support repealing the provision.

And Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., defended the provision in comments to Politico. 

‘I’d like for us to be able to defend our branch when DOJ gets out of control,’ he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., similarly suggested to reporters on Wednesday that he was in favor of the measure.

‘I would just say, I mean, you have an independent, co-equal branch of government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired — spied on, if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,’ Thune said. ‘That, to me, demands some accountability.’

He added, ‘I think that in the end, this is something that all members of Congress, both House and Senate, are probably going to want as a protection, and we were thinking about the institution of the Senate and individual senators going into the future.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Nancy Mace’s bid to censure fellow GOP Rep. Cory Mills fails

No Comments

A bid by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., to force a censure of her fellow House Republican and remove his committee assignments failed on Wednesday night.

Mace introduced a censure resolution against Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., earlier in the day, accusing him of stolen valor among other alleged improprieties.

Mills rose in his own defense on Wednesday night to call for a vote to refer the measure to the House Ethics Committee and deny her accusations.

His counter-effort succeeded, with the House voting 310-103 to send the matter to the ethics panel — effectively squashing Mace’s effort for an immediate punishment.

Seven House Republicans voted alongside Mace to move the censure vote forward. They are Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Kat Cammack, R-Fla., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., and Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

The 310 lawmakers who voted against Mace’s move included both Democrats and Republicans.

Twelve lawmakers, including members of the House Ethics Committee, voted ‘present.’

Mace introduced the censure as a privileged resolution, a mechanism aimed at forcing House GOP leaders to reckon with a piece of legislation in the immediate future.

The resolution accused Mills of a wide variety of improprieties, including misrepresenting his military service and working as a private military contractor while serving as a member of Congress. 

She also cited several media reports alleging Mills assaulted past romantic partners while being accused of threatening another woman he was also reportedly involved with. Mills previously denied those allegations.

In addition to censuring him, Mace’s resolution would have also removed Mills from his roles on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Armed Services Committee if successful.

Hours before the vote, however, the House Ethics Committee announced it would open an investigation into Mills via a new subcommittee — a move Mace criticized as an effort to neuter her push.

‘This is a naked attempt to kill my resolution to censure Rep. Cory Mills. Common sense tells us we don’t need an investigative subcommittee to decide if Cory Mills, who a Court found to be an immediate and present danger of committing dating violence against a woman, should serve on committees related to national security. Or the testimony of soldiers and the stolen valor,’ Mace said.

Notably, however, the House Ethics Committee is the traditional first step when lawmakers are accused of impropriety.

It comes after House Democrats threatened to pursue a retaliatory censure against Mills Tuesday evening in response to Republicans trying to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., the Virgin Islands’ nonvoting representative in the House, over her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Plaskett censure failed after three House Republicans voted ‘no’ and three more voted ‘present,’ however, along with every Democrat rejecting the measure. Democrats did not appear to pursue the censure against Mills after that.

Mace had accused Mills of participating in a ‘backroom deal’ at the time to avoid a censure, adding, ‘I have the General who ‘recommended’ him for the Bronze Star on record saying he never wrote it, never read it and never personally signed it.’

Mills’ office told Fox News Digital there was never a deal, however, and had expected his censure to move forward on Tuesday night. He also voted in favor of censuring Plaskett.

Mace introduced her resolution after sending a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday accusing Mills of ‘credible accusations he misrepresented his military service’ and ‘credible accusations of having committed crimes against women.’

Mills has previously denied wrongdoing in reports of both sets of allegations.

He also criticized the move in a statement to Fox News Digital.

‘Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s latest stunt is a politically motivated attempt to grab headlines and settle personal scores. The American people deserve better than fabricated accusations and theatrics at a time when Republicans should be focused on governing,’ Mills said.

‘The claims on my valor that she’s pushing are baseless, recycled, and already publicly disproven. I fully deny them, just as I always have. This is not oversight, it’s attention-seeking dressed up as accountability.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

Could the Silver Price Really Hit $100 per Ounce?

No Comments

Will the First Majestic Silver (TSX:FR,NYSE:AG) CEO’s silver price prediction of over US$100 per ounce come true?

The silver price has surged over 80 percent in 2025 on growing economic uncertainty amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war, supported by long-term demand fundamentals.

After breaking through the US$40 per ounce mark in early September, the silver price continued its ascent to an all-time record high above US$54 on October 17, and silver’s price is rallied in November to test that new high again.

Well-known figure Keith Neumeyer, CEO of First Majestic, has frequently said he believes the white metal could climb even further, hitting the US$100 mark or even reaching as high as US$130 per ounce.

Neumeyer has voiced this opinion often over the past decade. He put up a US$130 price target in a November 2017 interview with Palisade Radio, when silver was just US$17, and he also discussed it in an August 2022 interview with Wall Street Silver. He has reiterated his triple-digit silver price forecast in multiple interviews with Kitco over the years, including one in March 2023.

In 2024, Neumeyer made his US$100 silver call in a conversation with ITM Trading’s Daniela Cambone at the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) convention, and in April of that year he acknowledged his reputation as the ‘triple-digit silver guy’ on the Todd Ault Podcast.

At times he’s been even bolder, suggesting in 2016 that silver could reach US$1,000 if gold were to hit US$10,000. More recently, he has pushed his expected timeline for US$100 silver back, but he remains very bullish in the long term.

In order to better understand where Neumeyer’s opinion comes from and whether a triple-digit silver price is really in the cards, it’s important to take a look at the factors that affect the metal’s movements, as well as where prices have been in the past and where other industry insiders think silver could be headed.

First, let’s dive a little deeper into Neumeyer’s US$100 silver prediction.

In this article

    Why is Neumeyer calling for a US$100 silver price?

    Neumeyer believes silver could hit US$100 due to a variety of factors, including its consistent deficit, its industrial demand and how undervalued it is compared to gold.

    There’s a significant distance for silver to go before it reaches the success Neumeyer has boldly predicted. In order for the metal to jump to the US$100 mark, its price would have to double from its November price of above US$50. However, silver has already tripled from its price of around US$17 per ounce when he made his US$130 call in November 2017.

    Neumeyer has previously said he expects a triple-digit silver price in part because he believed the market cycle could be compared to the year 2000, when investors were sailing high on the dot-com bubble and the mining sector was down. He thinks it’s only a matter of time before the market corrects, like it did in 2001 and 2002, and commodities see a big rebound in pricing. It was during 2000 that Neumeyer himself invested heavily in mining stocks and came out on top.

    “I’ve been calling for triple-digit silver for a few years now, and I’m more enthused now,” Neumeyer said at an event in January 2020, noting that there are multiple factors behind his reasoning. “But I’m cautiously enthused because, you know, I thought it would have happened sooner than it currently is happening.”

    In an August 2022 with Wall Street Silver, he reiterated his support for triple-digit silver and said he’s not alone in this optimistic view — in fact, he’s been surpassed in that optimism. ‘I actually saw someone the other day call for US$500 silver,’ he said. ‘I’m not quite sure I’m at the level. Give me US$50 first and we’ll see what happens after that.’

    Another factor driving Neumeyer’s position is his belief that the silver market is in a deficit. In a May 2021 interview, when presented with supply-side data from the Silver Institute indicating the biggest surplus in silver market history, Neumeyer was blunt in his skepticism. “I think these numbers are made up,” he said. “I wouldn’t trust them at all.”

    He pointed out that subtracting net investments in silver exchange-traded products leaves the market in a deficit, and also questioned the methodology behind the institute’s recycling data given that most recycled silver metal comes from privately owned smelters and refineries that typically don’t make those figures public.

    ‘I’m guessing the mining sector produced something in the order of 800, maybe 825 million ounces in 2022,’ Neumeyer said when giving a Q4 2022 overview for his company. ‘Consumption numbers look like they’re somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 billion ounces. That’s due to all the great technologies, all the newfangled gadgets that we’re consuming. Electric vehicles, solar panels, windmills, you name it. All these technologies require silver … that’s a pretty big (supply) deficit.’

    In a December 2023 interview with Kitco, Neumeyer stressed that silver is more than just a poor man’s gold and he spoke to silver’s important role in electric vehicles and solar cells. In line with this view on silver, First Majestic is a member of a consortium of silver producers that in January 2024 sent a letter to the Canadian government urging that silver be recognized as a critical mineral. Silver’s inclusion on the list would allow silver producers to accelerate the development of strategic projects with financial and administrative assistance from the government.

    In this 2024 PDAC interview, Neumeyer once again highlighted this sizable imbalance in the silver’s supply-demand picture. “We’re six years into this deficit. The deficit in 2024 looks like it’s gonna be bigger than 2023, and why is that? Because miners aren’t producing enough silver for the needs of the human race,” he said.

    More controversially, Neumeyer is of the opinion that the white metal will eventually become uncoupled from its sister metal gold, and should be seen as a strategic metal due to its necessity in many everyday appliances, from computers to electronics, as well as the technologies mentioned above. He has also stated that silver production has gone down in recent years, meaning that contrary to popular belief, he believes the metal is actually a rare commodity.

    Neumeyer’s March 2023 triple-digit silver call was a long-term call, and he explained that while he believed gold would break US$3,000 that year, he thought silver will only reach US$30. However, once the gold-silver ratio is that unbalanced, he believes that silver will begin to take off, and it would just need a catalyst.

    ‘It could be Elon Musk taking a position in the silver space,’ Neumeyer said. ‘There’s going to be a catalyst at some time, and headlines in the Wall Street Journal might talk about the silver supply deficit … I don’t know what the catalyst will be, but investors and institutions will wake up to the fundamentals of the metal, and that’s when it will start to move.’

    In an August 2023 interview with SilverNews, Neumeyer said banks are holding the silver market down. He pointed to the paper market for the metal, which he said the banks have capped at US$30 even in times of high buying.

    ‘If you want to go and buy 100 billion ounces of (paper) silver, you might not even move the price, because some bank just writes you a contract that says (you own that),’ he noted, saying banks are willing to get short because once buying stops, they push the price down to get the investors out of the market and buy the silver back. ‘… If the miners started pulling their metal out of the current system, then all of a sudden the banks wouldn’t know if they’re going to get the metal or not, so they wouldn’t be taking the same risks they’re taking today in the paper markets.’

    The month after the interview, his company First Majestic launched its own minting facility, named First Mint.

    In 2024, gold experienced a resurgence in investor attention as the potential for Fed rate cuts came into view. In an interview with Cambone at PDAC 2024, Neumeyer countered that perception, stating, “There’s a rush into gold because of the de-dollarization of the world. It has nothing to do with the interest rates.”

    In an April 2025 Money Metals podcast, Neumeyer reiterated his belief that silver is in an extreme supply deficit and that eventually silver prices will have to rise in order to incentivize silver miners to dig up more of the metal.

    ‘You need triple digit silver just to motivate the mining companies to start investing again because the mining companies aren’t going to make the investment because there’s just so much risk in it,’ he said.

    Several market analysts have raised concerns about this silver supply deficit.

    Moreover, in April at the Sprott Silver Conference, Maria Smirnova, senior portfolio manager and chief investment officer at Sprott Asset Management, highlighted the deficit as well.

    Smirnova explained that silver has been in a supply deficit of 150 million ounces to 200 million ounces annually (or 10 percent to 20 percent of total supply), while production has been stagnant or declining over the past decade. She emphasized that above-ground inventories have declined by nearly 500 million ounces in recent years.

    What factors affect the silver price?

    In order to glean a better understanding of the precious metal’s chances of trading around the US$100 range, it’s important to examine the elements that could push it to that level or pull it further away.

    The strength of the US dollar and US Federal Reserve interest rate changes are factors that will continue to affect the precious metal, as are geopolitical issues and supply and demand dynamics.

    Although Neumeyer believes that the ties that bind silver to gold need to be broken, the reality is that most of the same factors that shape the price of gold also move silver.

    For that reason, it’s helpful to look at gold price drivers when trying to understand silver’s price action. Silver is, of course, the more volatile of the two precious metals, but nevertheless it often trades in relative tandem with gold.

    First, it’s useful to understand that higher interest rates are generally negative for gold and silver, while lower rates tend to be positive. That’s because when rates are higher, investment demand shifts to products that can accrue interest.

    The Fed’s rate moves are currently playing a key role in pumping up silver prices. Heading into September of this year, the silver price was testing 14 year highs as market watchers expected the first rate cuts on the part of the Fed since it paused its interest rate moves in November 2024. The Fed chose to cut rates at the meeting, and silver and gold both climbed even further in the week following the decision. The subsequent rate cut during the October 29 meeting also pushed silver prices higher.

    While central bank actions are important for gold, and by extension silver, another key price driver lately has been geopolitical uncertainty. The past decade has been filled with major geopolitical events such as tensions between the US and other countries such as North Korea, China and Iran. The huge economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the banking crisis in early 2023, Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine, and rising tensions in the Middle East brought about by the Israel-Hamas war have been sources of concern for investors.

    Trump’s tariffs have also rattled stock markets and ratcheted up the level of economic uncertainty pervading the landscape in 2025. This has proved price positive for gold, bringing silver along for the ride.

    However, silver’s industrial side can not be ignored. In the current environment, the industrial case of silver is weakening in the short term; but longer term still holds some prospects for larger gains.

    Higher industrial demand from emerging sectors due to factors like the transition to renewable energy and the emergence of AI technology will be highly supportive for the metal over the next few years. Solar panels are an especially exciting sector as manufacturers have found increasing the silver content increases energy efficiency.

    “Even in the US, the policy really is ‘all of the above’ — all forms of energy. So I’m not concerned about solar cells diminishing. Could they go flat? Yeah, that’s fine. Flat at 300 million ounces? That’s great demand for silver,” said former Hecla Mining (NYSE:HL) CEO Phil Baker during a May webinar hosted by Simon Catt of Arlington Group.

    “(Prime Minister Narendra) Modi made a policy decision a year ago to grow the solar industry in India. So in India, only about 10 percent of their demand for silver is used for industrial purposes. In China, it’s 90 percent, and so what you’re going to have in India is you’re going to see their solar panel growth skyrocket,” he added.

    Could silver hit US$100 per ounce?

    While we can’t know if we’ll reach a $100 per ounce silver price in the near future, there is support for Neumeyer’s belief that the metal is undervalued and that “ideal conditions are present for silver prices to rise.”

    So, if the silver price does rise further, can it go that high?

    Let’s look at silver’s recent history. Prior to this year, the highest price for silver was just under US$50 in the 1980, and it came close to that level again briefly in 2011. After spending the latter half of the 2010s in the teens, the 2020s have seen silver largely hold above US$20.

    In August 2020, the price of silver reached nearly US$28.50 before pulling back again, and moved back up near those heights in February 2021. The price of silver saw a 2022 high point of US$26.46 in February, and passed US$26 again in both May and November 2023.

    Silver rallied in the later part of the first quarter of 2024, and by April 12 was once again flirting with the US$30 mark as it reached an 11 year high of US$29.26. Despite pulling back to the US$26 level soon after, by October 22 the price of silver had a nice run in the lead up to the election, rising up to US$34.80.

    However, a stronger dollar and signs that the Fed might not be so quick to cut interest rates as deeply as expected were seen as price negative for silver. It was in a downward slide for much of the remainder of the year.

    For much of 2025, silver has followed gold higher on factors including persistent inflationary pressures brought on by Trump’s aggressive tariff announcements and the ongoing geopolitical risks in the Middle East. The commodity’s price uptick also came on the back of very strong silver investment demand.

    What do other experts think about US$100 silver?

    As silver’s trajectory continues upwards, some silver market experts are agreeing with Neumeyer’s triple-digit silver hypothesis, or at least that the price of silver still has further room to grow.

    “It’s hard not to reference Keith, our CEO, and triple digit comes to mind pretty frequently now — more people are talking about it,” Alkhafaji explained at the time.

    He elaborated, “I’m a believer of economics, you look at the mining ratio and that’s sitting at 7:1, yet the price ratio is sitting at 90:1 right now. We just talked about how gold is comfortable at US$3,000, so that tells us that silver needs to play catch up to collapse that ratio.”

    This set up bodes well for those not only invested in physical silver, but in silver mining stocks as well.

    ‘I manage a fund that invests in gold and silver stocks. And you know, these silver miners, a lot of them, have costs to mine an ounce of something between US$20 and US$30,” Lepard said. “If the price of silver goes to US$120, that’s a heck of a profit margin. And so these stocks are going to be very, very attractive to hold, and that’s why I hold them.”

    Chris Marcus, founder of Arcadia Economics, sees the silver supply deficit as not only an issue for the industrial sector, but for the futures and bullion markets as well, which has already sparked a major rally in the silver price in October and could ignite further rallies.

    Electronics manufacturers like Samsung (KRX:005930) and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) are often referenced when discussing the dangers of the silver deficit. However, Marcus said that an October Bloomberg article about the UK Royal Mint warning it was running low on silver shows that it is not just the industrial users struggling to get hold of the metal.

    “The Royal Mint is not an electronics manufacturer. But do you want to call that industrial? I mean, they use silver to make their product, and they’re talking about delays,” he explained.

    Even more remarkable, said Marcus, is that this is happening at the same time as the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) is short of the metal and heavy demand in India is also leading to supply challenges. “They have a silver shortage. They cannot buy it right now. So do we have an overall silver shortage?”

    “You know, whether in the short term or the long term, one way or another, we’re going to run into a supply demand brick wall. And when that day happens, we could see triple digit silver prices in a very, very short period of time,” he said. “I figure it’s going to be US$200 to US$400 an ounce, at least, before this is all over.”

    Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) analysts have a bullish outlook on the silver market and expect to see more record-breaking prices in 2026. The bank is forecasting a high of US$65 per ounce and an average of US$56.25 per ounce for next year.

    FAQs for silver

    Can silver hit $1,000 per ounce?

    As things are now, it seems unlikely silver will ever reach highs of US$1,000 per ounce, which Keith Neumeyer predicted in 2016 could happen if gold ever climbed to US$10,000 per ounce.

    This is related to the gold to silver production ratio discussed above. At the time of the 2016 prediction, this ratio was around 1 ounce of gold to 9 ounces of silver, or 1:9.

    If silver was priced according to production ratio today, when gold is at US$4,000, then silver should be around US$445. However, the gold to silver pricing ratio has actually sat around 1:80 to 1:90 recently. With gold at around US$4,000 per ounce in November, silver is trading around US$51 per ounce.

    Additionally, even if pricing did change drastically to reflect production rates, gold would need to climb by 150 percent from its current price to hit the US$10,000 gold price Neumeyer mentioned back in 2016.

    Why is silver so cheap?

    The primary reason that silver is sold at a significant discount to gold is supply and demand, with more silver being mined annually. While silver does have both investment and industrial demand, the global focus on gold as an investment vehicle, including countries stockpiling gold, can overshadow silver.

    Additionally, jewelry alone is a massive force for gold demand.

    There is an abundance of silver — according to the US Geological Survey, to date 1,740,000 metric tons (MT) of silver have been discovered, while only 244,000 MT of gold have been found, a ratio of about 1 ounce of gold to 7.1 ounces of silver. In terms of output, 25,000 MT of silver were mined in 2024 compared to 3,300 MT for gold.

    Looking at these numbers, that puts gold and silver production at about a 1:7.5 ratio last year, while the price ratio on November 19, 2025, was around 1:81 — a huge disparity.

    Is silver really undervalued?

    Many experts believe that silver is undervalued compared to fellow currency metal gold. As discussed, their production and price ratios are currently incredibly disparate.

    While investment demand is higher for gold, silver has seen increasing time in the limelight in recent years, including a 2021 silver squeeze that saw new entrants to the market join in.

    Another factor that lends more intrinsic value to silver is that it’s an industrial metal as well as a precious metal. It has applications in technology and batteries — both growing sectors that will drive demand higher.

    Silver’s two sides has been on display in recent years: silver demand hit record highs in 2022, according to the Silver Institute, with physical silver investment rising by 22 percent and industrial by 5 percent over 2021. For 2023, industrial demand was up 11 percent over the previous year, compared to a 28 percent decline in physical silver investment.

    Is silver better than gold?

    There are merits for both metals, especially as part of a well-balanced portfolio. As many analysts point out, silver has been known to outperform its sister metal gold during times of economic prosperity and expansion.

    On the other hand, during economic uncertainty silver values are impacted by declines in fabrication demand.

    Silver’s duality as a precious and industrial metal also provides price support. As a report from the CPM Group notes, “it can be seen that silver in fact almost always (but not always) out-performs gold during a gold bull market.”

    At what price did Warren Buffet buy silver?

    Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A) bought up 37 percent of global silver supply between 1997 and 2006. Silver ranged from US$4 to US$10 during that period.

    In fact, between July 1997 and January 1998 alone, the company bought about 129 million ounces of the metal, much of which was for under US$5. Adjusted for inflation, the company’s purchases in that window cost about US$8.50 to US$11.50.

    How to invest in silver?

    There are a variety of ways to get into the silver market. For example, investors may choose to put their money into silver-focused stocks by buying shares of companies focused on silver mining and exploration. As a by-product metal, investors can also gain exposure to silver through some gold companies.

    There are also silver exchange-traded funds that give broad exposure to silver companies and the metal itself, while more experienced traders may be interested in silver futures. And of course, for those who prefer a more tangible investment, purchasing physical bullion in silver bar and silver coin form is also an option.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com
    by
    Read More