Over the past year, gold has gained about 36% while silver has climbed roughly 27%, meaning silver has underperformed at a time when many expected it to outpace gold.
Ross Norman of MetalsDaily argues that blaming this gap on “manipulation” misses how markets actually work. Banks and major market participants often neutralize their exposure by balancing physical holdings with offsetting futures positions. That activity can create the appearance of distortion without proving coordinated suppression. According to Norman, repeated claims that the market is being manipulated have left silver “friendless” among investors, despite its solid supply-demand fundamentals.
The steady drumbeat of manipulation allegations appears to have an unintended consequence: potential buyers become wary not of the market itself but of the people making the claims. Instead of prompting fresh investment, those messages discourage participation, narrowing the pool of buyers and slowing silver’s price momentum relative to gold.
Looking beyond the rhetoric, silver’s fundamentals remain supportive. Industrial demand, limited new mine supply, and growing interest in silver-backed investment products continue to underpin long-term value. Yet sentiment and investor behavior play a critical role in price discovery. When confidence is eroded by repeated accusations—true or not—liquidity and buying pressure can falter, leaving prices lower than fundamentals alone would suggest.
Ultimately, the debate highlights the complex interaction between market structure, participant behavior, and public narratives. While it is important to scrutinize market practices for fairness, it is equally important to recognize how persistent negative narratives can shape perceptions and deter the very investment needed to reflect underlying fundamentals in prices.