I found it interesting in this Sprott piece The Silver Lining that Sprott includes SLV in his table of "real investment demand for silver".
In the context of his point that GFMS and The Silver Institute neglect investment demand, I assume by the use of the word "real" Sprott must mean physical. In which case by including SLV's 305,205,951oz he is therefore saying it does have the physical.
If SLV doesn't, then he shouldn't include it in the table as their holdings would represent fake paper silver. However if he doesn't include SLV then he has no point about GFMS/Silver Institute missing investment demand of 225,783,924oz because without SLV the "aggregate implied investment demand" figure from GFMS/Silver Institute covers the other funds' inflows.
In the context of his point that GFMS and The Silver Institute neglect investment demand, I assume by the use of the word "real" Sprott must mean physical. In which case by including SLV's 305,205,951oz he is therefore saying it does have the physical.
If SLV doesn't, then he shouldn't include it in the table as their holdings would represent fake paper silver. However if he doesn't include SLV then he has no point about GFMS/Silver Institute missing investment demand of 225,783,924oz because without SLV the "aggregate implied investment demand" figure from GFMS/Silver Institute covers the other funds' inflows.
