Gold & silver daily report · 2026-11-14

On the morning of November 14 Beijing time, Gold API showed spot gold near $3,887.60/oz and spot silver near $48.650/oz. Trading Economics showed roughly $3,880.27 and $48.75 in the same retrieval round, leaving both cross-source gaps below 0.2%. Completed November 13 bars keep gold, silver, GLD and SLV in Bear Regimes and inside their technical-cheap zones. High real yields, high nominal yields and a strong dollar remain the main headwinds.

Cheap / fair / hot are fixed technical bands around the 200-day average (0.90x / 1.10x), not intrinsic-value estimates. Spot, futures and ETFs are kept separate.

1. Latest prices and spot-to-ETF mapping

The mechanical cross-time mappings are GLD ≈ spot gold × 0.09143 and SLV ≈ spot silver × 0.90606. ETF prices are November 13 closes while spot is intraday November 14, so both are TIMING_MISMATCH_ESTIMATE; fees, cash, premiums/discounts and tracking also matter.

2. Regime, current zone and exact bands

Rule: Bull or Bear requires completed price, 50-day average, 200-day average and the roughly 20-session 200-day slope to align; otherwise the result is Transition.

All four completed closes are below their 50-day and 200-day averages, the 50-day averages are below the 200-day averages, and 200-day slopes remain negative. Over roughly 20 sessions, the gold / GLD 200-day averages fell 2.38% / 1.58%, while silver / SLV fell 4.27% / 5.33%. There is no classification gap, but technical cheapness does not prove a bottom.

3. Price stage, momentum and risk meaning

Near-term risk lines use completed-bar lows: gold $3,856–3,885, GLD $352.91–354.89, silver $48.05–49.12, and SLV $43.97–44.13. First-stage trend repair requires reclaiming the 50-day averages; leaving technical-cheap zones requires reclaiming the cheap-band ceilings above.

4. Gold/silver ratio: silver is not relatively cheap

The November 13 futures-close ratio was about 79.12; the cross-time spot ratio was about 79.91. In matched FMP five-year observations, the median was about 83.23 and the current reading sat near the 33rd percentile (10th / 90th percentiles about 64.02 / 90.26). Under the convention that a higher ratio means cheaper silver, silver is fair but somewhat expensive relative to gold, not clearly cheap. Absolute technical cheapness and relative cheapness versus gold are different claims.

5. Macro environment: increasingly restrictive

The combined backdrop remains restrictive. High real and nominal yields plus a strong dollar pressure precious metals; a negative NFCI provides a cushion but does not overturn the daily Bear regimes.

6. Official ETF holdings proxies

• GLD: the SPDR archive shows 1,041.08 tonnes on November 11 → 1,040.70 tonnes on November 12, down 0.38 tonnes. This is a two-observation HOLDINGS_PROXY, not a dollar cash-flow measure.
• SLV: the iShares page reports 15,684.52 tonnes / 504.269Moz / 558.65M shares as of November 13, unchanged from the previously verified November 11 values. The observation confirms no holdings increase; it is not a daily cash-flow claim.
• October WGC background is unchanged: global gold ETFs added about US$2.7bn / 19 tonnes, taking holdings to roughly 4,275 tonnes. This is a monthly slow variable, not a November 13 flow.

7. Supply-demand slow variables

• Gold: WGC estimates roughly 321 tonnes of Q3 2026 central-bank net purchases and about 675 tonnes year to date. A large share is estimated unreported activity and is not a complete country-by-country disclosure.
• Gold supply: Q3 mine production was about 1,071 tonnes, up 3% year over year; recycling was about 314.5 tonnes, down 8%.
• Silver: the Silver Institute still expects industrial and photovoltaic demand to support a structural deficit, but thrifting, substitution and the industrial cycle prevent a linear extrapolation. This annual slow variable does not override the current Bear regime and high volatility.

8. Scenario mapping (mechanical estimates, not targets)

The mapping uses simple ratios between this round's spot observations and ETF closes. It ignores fees, cash, premiums/discounts, futures basis and timing differences and is only a sensitivity table.

9. Three independent windows

• Tactical (weeks): all four assets are technically cheap but still Bear. Gold can support very small staged buys; silver and SLV have stronger downside momentum and require smaller sizing plus a 50-day repair signal.
• Cyclical (months): gold / GLD must reclaim $4,180.76 / $380.91, and silver / SLV $58.85 / $52.87, for first-stage trend improvement. A true regime reversal still requires sustained moving-average and 200-day-slope improvement.
• Strategic (year+): gold remains suitable as a core diversifier and central-bank demand is structural support. Silver offers industrial and deficit leverage, but volatility, thrifting and substitution argue for a smaller satellite allocation.

10. Action mapping and hard triggers

• Gold: hold $3,856–3,885 to preserve the small-tranche case; reclaim $3,969.27 to leave the cheap zone and $4,180.76 for first-stage trend repair.
• GLD: tighten risk below $352.91; reclaim $367.58 to leave the cheap zone and $380.91 for first-stage repair.
• Silver: stay defensive below $48.05; reclaim $58.85 for first-stage improvement and $60.70 to leave the cheap zone.
• SLV: tighten risk below $43.97; reclaim $52.87 for first-stage repair and $55.73 to leave the cheap zone.
• If DFII10 remains above 2.8%, DGS10 above 5.0%, and DXY above 103, keep slowing new purchases.

Data health: the exact FMP MCP namespace returned completed November 13 GCUSD, SIUSD, GLD and SLV quotes and histories. Gold API and Trading Economics supplied same-round November 14 spot observations. Yahoo's six requested daily series all returned HTTP 429, so technical calculations used consistent FMP completed-close series. The FMP DXY endpoint returned ACCESS DENIED and was not equivalently retried; OCBC's November 13 public report was used instead. All three FRED requests succeeded. The GLD archive reached November 12 and the SLV page November 13. Futures were not called spot, holdings were not called cash flows, and technical cheapness was not called intrinsic-value discount.