銀鉱株2018Q4ファンダメンタルズ by Zeal
大切な数段落だけ訳しておきます。
Silver Miners’ Q4’18 Fundamentals
Adam Hamilton March 29, 2019 4073 Words
The
major silver miners have rallied higher on balance in recent months,
enjoying a young upleg. That’s a welcome change after they suffered
a miserable 2018. Times are tough for silver miners, since silver’s
prices have languished near extreme lows relative to gold. That has
forced many traditional silver miners to increasingly diversify into
gold. The major silver miners’ recently-released Q4’18 results
illuminate their struggles.
Four
times a year publicly-traded companies release treasure troves of
valuable information in the form of quarterly reports. Required by
the US Securities and Exchange Commission, these 10-Qs and 10-Ks
contain the best fundamental data available to traders. They dispel
all the sentiment distortions inevitably surrounding prevailing
stock-price levels, revealing corporations’ underlying hard
fundamental realities.
While 10-Qs with filing deadlines of 40 days after quarter-ends are
required for normal quarters, 10-K annual reports are instead
mandated after quarters ending fiscal years. Most silver miners
logically run their accounting on calendar years, so they issue
10-Ks after Q4s. Since these annual reports are larger and must
be audited by independent CPAs, their filing deadlines are
extended to 60 days after quarter-ends.
The
definitive list of major silver-mining stocks to analyze comes from
the world’s most-popular silver-stock investment vehicle, the SIL
Global X Silver Miners ETF. Launched way back in April 2010, it has
maintained a big first-mover advantage. SIL’s net assets were
running $362m in mid-March near the end of Q4’s earnings season,
6.1x greater than its next-biggest competitor’s. SIL is the leading
silver-stock benchmark.
In
mid-March SIL included 21 component stocks, which are weighted
somewhat proportionally to their market capitalizations. This list
includes the world’s largest silver miners, including the biggest
primary ones. Every quarter I dive into the latest operating and
financial results from SIL’s top 17 companies. That’s simply an
arbitrary number that fits neatly into the table below, but still a
commanding sample.
As
of mid-March these major silver miners accounted for fully 97.7% of
SIL’s total weighting. In Q4’18 they collectively mined 75.5m
ounces of silver. The latest comprehensive data available for
global silver supply and demand came from the Silver Institute in
April 2018. That covered 2017, when world silver mine production
totaled 852.1m ounces. That equates to a run rate around 213.0m
ounces per quarter.
Assuming that mining pace persisted to Q4’18, SIL’s top 17 silver
miners were responsible for about 35% of world production. That’s
relatively high considering just 28% of 2017’s global silver output
came from primary silver mines! 36% came from lead/zinc mines, 23%
from copper, and 12% from gold. 7/10ths of all silver
produced is merely an other-metals-mining byproduct. Primary silver
mines and miners are fairly rare.
Scarce silver-heavy deposits are required to support primary silver
mines, where over half their revenue comes from silver. They
are increasingly difficult to discover and ever-more expensive to
develop. And silver’s challenging economics of recent years argue
against miners even pursuing it. So even traditional major silver
miners have shifted their investment focus into actively
diversifying into far-more-profitable gold.
Silver price levels are best measured relative to prevailing gold
prices, which
overwhelmingly drive silver price action. Q4’18 saw the worst
Silver/Gold Ratio
witnessed in nearly a quarter century! The SGR collapsed to
86.3x in late November, an extreme 23.8-year secular low. The raw
silver price fell under $14 in mid-November, a major 2.8-year low.
With such a rotten silver environment, silver miners had to
struggle.
The
largest primary silver miners dominating SIL’s ranks are scattered
around the world. 11 of the top 17 mainly trade in US stock
markets, 3 in the United Kingdom, and 1 each in South Korea, Mexico,
and Peru. SIL’s geopolitical diversity is good for investors, but
makes it difficult to analyze and compare the biggest silver miners’
results. Financial-reporting requirements vary considerably from
country to country.
In
the UK companies report in half-year increments instead of
quarterly. Some silver miners still publish quarterly updates, but
their data is limited. In cases where half-year data is all that
was made available, I split it in half for a Q4 approximation.
Canada has quarterly reporting, but the deadlines are looser than in
the States. Some Canadian miners trading in the US really drag
their feet in getting quarterly results out.
The
big silver companies in South Korea, Mexico, and Peru present other
problems. Their reporting is naturally done in their own languages,
which I can’t read. Some release limited information in English,
but even those translations can be difficult to interpret due to
differing accounting standards and focuses. It’s definitely
challenging bringing all the quarterly data together for the diverse
SIL-top-17 silver miners.
But
analyzing them in the aggregate is essential to understand how they
are faring. So each quarter I wade through all available
operational and financial reports and dump the data into a big
spreadsheet for analysis. Some highlights make it into this table.
Blank fields mean a company hadn’t reported that data by mid-March,
as Q4’s earnings season wound down. Some of SIL’s components report
in gold-centric terms.
The
first couple columns of this table show each SIL component’s symbol
and weighting within this ETF as of mid-March. While most of these
stocks trade on US exchanges, some symbols are listings from
companies’ primary foreign stock exchanges. That’s followed by each
miner’s Q4’18 silver production in ounces, along with its absolute
year-over-year change. Next comes this same quarter’s gold
production.
Nearly all the major silver miners in SIL also produce
significant-to-large amounts of gold! That’s truly a double-edged
sword. While gold really stabilizes and boosts silver miners’ cash
flows, it also retards their stocks’ sensitivity to silver itself.
So the next column reveals how pure these elite silver miners
are, approximating their percentages of Q4’18 revenues actually
derived from silver. This is calculated one of two ways.
The
large majority of these top SIL silver miners reported total Q4
revenues. Quarterly silver production multiplied by silver’s
average price in Q4 can be divided by these sales to yield an
accurate relative-purity gauge. When Q4 sales weren’t reported, I
estimated them by adding silver sales to gold sales based on their
production and average quarterly prices. But that’s less optimal,
as it ignores any base-metals byproducts.
Next
comes the major silver miners’ most-important fundamental data for
investors, cash costs and all-in sustaining costs per ounce mined.
The latter directly drives profitability which ultimately determines
stock prices. These key costs are also followed by YoY changes.
Last but not least the annual changes are shown in operating cash
flows generated and hard GAAP earnings, with a couple exceptions
necessary.
Percentage changes aren’t relevant or meaningful if data shifted
from positive to negative or vice versa, or if derived from two
negative numbers. So in those cases I included raw underlying data
rather than weird or misleading percentage changes. This whole
dataset together offers a fantastic high-level read on how the major
silver miners are faring fundamentally as an industry. They
definitely struggled in Q4.
SIL’s performance certainly reflects the challenges of profitably
mining silver when its price languishes so darned cheap. In 2018
SIL plunged 23.3%, amplifying silver’s own 8.6% loss by 2.7x.
Silver’s weakest prices relative to gold in almost a quarter century
wreaked havoc on silver-mining sentiment. Investors didn’t want
anything to do with silver miners, and their own managements seemed
almost as bearish.
In
Q4’18 silver’s average price dropped 12.9% YoY to just $14.53. That
was disproportionally worse than gold, which saw its average price
decline 3.8% YoY. Such deep lows exacerbated the pall of despair
that is plaguing the silver-mining industry. While production
decisions aren’t made quarter by quarter, it sure felt like the
seriously-weak silver prices were choking off output. Production is
the lifeblood of silver miners.
The
SIL top 17’s collective silver production fell 3.9% YoY in Q4’18 to
75.5m ounces. Interestingly that’s right in line with what the
major gold miners
of GDX experienced that quarter, a 4%ish YoY slide when adjusted for
mega-mergers.
The major silver miners could be experiencing a peak-gold-like
decline in their silver production. Peak silver isn’t discussed as
much, but world silver mine output has been shrinking.
According to the Silver Institute’s latest annual World Silver
Survey current to 2017, world silver mined supply peaked at 895.1m
ounces in 2015. It nosed over a slight 0.7% in 2016, but
accelerated sharply to another 4.1% drop in 2017. So the SIL top
17’s output contraction in Q4’18 is just continuing this trend.
Silver mining has been starved of capital since 2013, when silver
plummeted 35.6% on a 27.9% gold collapse!
Silver-mining stocks have been something of a pariah to even
contrarian investors for much of the time since then. That’s left
their prices largely drifting at relatively-low levels, making it
more difficult to obtain financing to expand operations. Investors
haven’t been interested in silver-stock shares, leaving miners wary
of issuing more to raise capital with stock prices so low. That can
really dilute existing shareholders.
With
the major silver miners unable or unwilling to invest in developing
new silver mines and expansions to offset their depleting output, it
has to decline. 11 of the 15 top SIL components reporting Q4’18
silver production mined fewer ounces than in Q4’17. All 15 together
averaged silver output shrinkage of 3.4% YoY. That’s a sharp
contrast to these same miners’ gold production, which grew an
average of 7.9% YoY.
In
overall total terms, the SIL top 17’s 1.4m ounces of gold mined in
Q4’18 still slipped 1.5% YoY. But with total silver production
sliding more than gold, the major silver miners’ long ongoing
diversification into the yellow metal continued. At the bombed-out
silver prices of recent years, the economics of gold mining are way
superior to silver mining. The traditional major silver miners are
painfully aware of this and acting on it.
Silver mining is as capital-intensive as gold mining, requiring
similar large expenses to plan, permit, and construct new mines,
mills, and expansions. It needs similar fleets of heavy excavators
and haul trucks to dig and move the silver-bearing ore. Similar
levels of employees are necessary to run silver mines. But silver
generates much-lower cash flows than gold due its lower
price. Silver miners have been forced to adapt.
The
major silver miners continued their trend of diversifying into gold
at silver’s expense in Q4’18. SIL’s largest component Wheaton
Precious Metals was a great example of this. It used to be known as
Silver Wheaton, a pure silver-streaming play. Back in May 2017 it
changed its name and symbol to reflect the fact it would
increasingly diversify into gold. In Q2’17 WPM streamed 7,192k and
80k ounces of silver and gold.
Back
then fully 61.9% of WPM’s sales still came from silver, qualifying
it as a primary “miner”. Fast-forward to Q4’18 and WPM’s silver
output plunged 27.1% YoY to 5,254k ounces! But its gold
mined rose 10.5% YoY to 107k ounces. That pushed the implied
percentage of WPM’s revenues down to just 36.8% silver, way below
the 50% primary threshold. Like it or not, the silver-mining
industry is increasingly turning yellow.
This
strategic shift is good and bad. The major silver miners’ growing
proportion of gold output is helping these companies weather this
long dark winter in silver prices. But lower percentages of sales
generated from silver leaves their stock prices and SIL less
responsive to silver price moves. Silver stocks’ leverage to
silver is the main reason investors buy them and their ETFs. Their
shift into gold is really degrading that.
In
Q4’18 the top 17 SIL silver miners averaged just 39.6% of their
sales from silver. Only Pan American Silver, First Majestic Silver,
Silvercorp Metals, and Endeavour Silver qualified as primary silver
miners with over half their revenues from the white metal. While
still low, that 39.6% average of SIL was actually considerably
better than Q4’17’s 36.0% despite the ongoing transition into gold.
But that’s not a trend shift.
In
Q4’17 SIL’s components included Tahoe Resources, which was bought
out by Pan American Silver in mid-November. Tahoe owned what was
once the world’s largest silver mine, Escobal in Guatemala.
It produced 5,700k ounces in Q1’17! But Guatemala’s government
shut it down after a frivolous lawsuit by anti-mining activists. I
last discussed the whole Tahoe saga in depth in my
Q3’18 essay
on silver miners’ results.
By
Q4’17 Escobal’s production had dropped to zero, leaving Tahoe’s
silver purity at 0.0%. That dragged down the SIL top 17’s average,
leaving it artificially low. But Pan American buying Tahoe for both
its gold production and hopes of convincing Guatemala to allow
Escobal to reopen killed Tahoe’s stock and purged it from SIL’s
ranks. Endeavour Silver edged into the top 17 to take its place,
with 59.6% of sales from silver.
If
Tahoe’s silver purity is excluded from Q4’17’s overall calculation
while Endeavour is added, SIL would have averaged 39.9%. So in
comparable terms Q4’18’s 39.6% remains a declining trend. Primary
silver miners continue to get rarer, they may even be a dying
breed. That has forced SIL’s managers to really scrape the bottom
of the barrel to find components to fill their ETF. That’s what
happened with Korea Zinc.
This
is no silver miner, but a base-metals smelter! In mid-March
it commanded a hefty 13.2% weighting in SIL, over 1/8th the total.
I’ve searched and searched, but can’t find English financial reports
for this company. But in 2017 it reported smelting 66.2m ounces of
silver, a 16.6m quarterly pace. I bet there’s not a single SIL
investor looking for base-metals-smelting exposure! Global X really
ought to remove it entirely.
The
capital allocated to Korea Zinc could be spread across the remaining
SIL components proportionally, reallocating and modestly upping
their weightings. But the fact Korea Zinc even ever made it into
SIL is a testament to how rarified the ranks of major silver miners
have become. That won’t reverse unless silver
mean reverts
dramatically higher relative to gold and remains at
much-better price levels for years on end.
With
SIL-top-17 silver production sliding 3.9% YoY in Q4’18, the
per-ounce mining costs should’ve risen proportionally.
Silver-mining costs are largely fixed quarter after quarter, with
actual mining requiring the same levels of infrastructure,
equipment, and employees. So the lower production, the fewer ounces
to spread mining’s big fixed costs across. SIL’s major silver
miners indeed reported far-higher costs last quarter.
There are two major ways to measure silver-mining costs, classic
cash costs per ounce and the superior all-in sustaining costs. Both
are useful metrics. Cash costs are the acid test of silver-miner
survivability in lower-silver-price environments, revealing the
worst-case silver levels necessary to keep the mines running.
All-in sustaining costs show where silver needs to trade to maintain
current mining tempos indefinitely.
Cash
costs naturally encompass all cash expenses necessary to
produce each ounce of silver, including all direct production costs,
mine-level administration, smelting, refining, transport,
regulatory, royalty, and tax expenses. In Q4’18 these SIL-top-17
silver miners reported cash costs averaging $6.46 per ounce. While
that surged 37.0% YoY, it still remains far below prevailing
prices. Silver miners face no existential threat.
The
major silver miners’ average cash costs vary considerably
quarter-to-quarter, partially depending on whether or not Silvercorp
Metals happens to be in the top 17 or not. This Canadian company
mining in China has negative cash costs due to massive
byproduct credits from lead and zinc. So over the past couple
years, SIL-top-17 average cash costs have swung wildly ranging all
the way from $3.95 to $6.75.
Way
more important than cash costs are the far-superior all-in
sustaining costs. They were introduced by the World Gold Council in
June 2013 to give investors a much-better understanding of what it
really costs to maintain silver mines as ongoing concerns. AISCs
include all direct cash costs, but then add on everything else that
is necessary to maintain and replenish operations at current
silver-production levels.
These additional expenses include exploration for new silver to mine
to replace depleting deposits, mine-development and construction
expenses, remediation, and mine reclamation. They also include the
corporate-level administration expenses necessary to oversee silver
mines. All-in sustaining costs are the most-important silver-mining
cost metric by far for investors, revealing silver miners’ true
operating profitability.
The
SIL-top-17 silver miners reported average AISCs of $13.28 in Q4’18,
surging 31.0% higher YoY! That is troubling, climbing vexingly
close to silver’s latest major secular low of $13.99 in
mid-November. While Q1’19’s average silver price of $15.55 so far
is much better, these profit margins are still tight for a
long-struggling industry. Thankfully the major silver miners’ cost
structure is better than that number implies.
The
highest AISCs by far in Q4 came from SSR Mining, which was formerly
known as Silver Standard Resources. They climbed another 11.7% YoY
to nosebleed levels of $20.45 per ounce! But that’s not a normal
situation. SSRM too is shifting into gold, gradually winding
down its old Pirquitas silver mine. As it depletes, there are
fewer ounces to spread its fixed costs of mining across which drives
up per-ounce costs.
Excluding SSRM, the rest of the SIL top 17 reporting AISCs in Q4’18
averaged a more-reasonable $12.48 per ounce. And these major silver
miners providing AISC outlooks for 2019 projected similar levels
near $12.70. This is still on the high side, as the SIL top 17’s
AISCs ran $10.14, $10.92, $10.93, and $13.53 in the preceding four
quarters. But $12.48 is still profitable even with silver seriously
languishing relative to gold.
Silver-mining profits really leverage higher silver prices, and big
earnings growth attracts in investors to bid up stock prices. In
Q4’18 silver averaged $14.53 per ounce. At the SIL top 17’s average
AISCs ex-SSRM of $12.48, that implies the major silver miners as an
industry were earning profits of $2.05 per ounce. Those are going
to grow majorly this quarter. The almost-over Q1’19 has seen
silver average $15.55.
With
Q4’s AISCs among the highest silver miners have reported in years,
they could very well decline in Q1. But assume they remain stable
near $12.48. That implies the major silver miners earned about
$3.07 per ounce in Q1. A mere 7.0% quarter-on-quarter silver rally
could catapult silver-mining profits a massive 49.8% higher QoQ!
This awesome profits leverage to silver is why silver stocks
amplify silver’s upside.
Of
course the greater a silver miner’s exposure to silver, the more its
stock will surge as silver advances. First Majestic Silver had the
highest silver purity in Q4 at 63.7% of its revenues derived from
silver. Thus AG’s stock should thrive with higher silver prices.
But SSR Mining’s mere 12.5% silver purity pretty much leaves silver
irrelevant. As SSRM is overwhelmingly a primary gold miner, higher
silver won’t move the needle.
So
investors who want classic silver-stock exposure to leverage silver
uplegs need to be smart about how they deploy capital. While buying
SIL is easy, it is dominated by primary gold miners. And who on
earth wants over 1/8th of their investment wasted in a giant
base-metals smelter? The greatest gains in future silver uplegs
will come in the stocks with the most silver exposure. They
are what investors need to own.
Despite slowing silver production and their ongoing diversification
into gold, the major silver miners still remain well-positioned to
see huge profits growth as silver marches higher. Especially
the primary ones. But with silver hammered to major secular lows in
Q4’18, the accounting results of the SIL-top-17 silver miners were
quite weak. 3.9%-lower production combined with 12.9%-lower average
silver prices wasn’t pretty.
The
following accounting comparisons exclude SIL’s largest component
WPM. For some reason it waits until the end of March to report Q4
results, which is incredibly disrespectful to its shareholders. Q4
data is getting stale with Q1 ending. There’s no excuse to delay
reporting with modern automated accounting systems gathering all
data in real-time. For workflow reasons I had to write this essay
before WPM reported.
Ex-WPM, the SIL top 17 sold $3.4b worth of metals in Q4’18, which
was down 10.9% YoY. Given lower silver production and much-lower
silver prices that was relatively good. But cash flows generated
from operations collapsed 52.5% YoY to $444m in Q4. That means less
capital available to finance mine expansions and new mine builds.
Overall corporate treasuries at these companies fell 33.0% YoY to
$2.6b.
Surprisingly the hard-GAAP-earnings picture actually improved over
Q4’17, though still remained weak. Excluding WPM, the SIL-top-17
silver miners lost $202m in Q4’18. That cut in half Q4’17’s total
losses of $412m. But both quarters’ accounting profits were skewed
by big non-cash impairment charges. When lower-silver-price
forecasts reduce economic reserves at mines, those perceived losses
must be recognized.
AG
wrote off $168m of its mines’ carrying value on its books in Q4’18
due to lower reserves driven by lower metals prices. The grades
within individual ore bodies vary widely. Silver that is economic
to mine at $20 might not be worth extracting at $15, so companies
have to cut their reserves and flush those non-cash losses through
their income statements. PAAS reported a smaller $28m impairment
charge as well.
Together these two $196m writedowns alone accounted for 97% of the
major silver miners’ Q4 losses. But even without them most of the
other SIL top 17 still reported mild-to-moderate GAAP losses with
the silver prices so darned low. The comparable Q4’17 results had
big writedowns too, primarily $547m by Volcan to meet new accounting
standards demanded by another company that bought 55% of its stock.
While the major gold miners had no excuse for their
huge impairment
charges in Q4’18 since gold was stable last year, silver miners
did since silver was hammered. As silver mean reverts higher with
gold and outpaces its rallying, the major silver miners’ GAAP
profits will improve radically. That will attract in a lot more
investors, especially to the primary silver miners. Those capital
inflows ought to drive massive gains.
Silver’s last major upleg erupted in essentially the first half of
2016, when silver soared 50.2% higher on a parallel 29.9% gold
upleg. SIL blasted 247.8% higher in just 6.9 months, a heck of a
gain for major silver stocks. But the purer primary silver miners
did far better. The purest major silver miner First Majestic’s
stock was a moonshot, skyrocketing a staggering 633.9% higher in
that same short span! SIL’s gains are muted.
シルバーが前回大きく上昇したのは2016年前半のことだ、このときゴールドの29.9%上昇に伴いシルバーは50.2%急騰した。SILは6.9か月で247.8%上昇し素晴らしいものだった。しかしシルバーを主産物とする鉱山株は遙かに良かった。シルバー専業のFirst Majestic株は月へも登らんばかりであり、同じ期間に633.9%も上昇した!SILの上昇は控えめなものだ。
シルバーが前回大きく上昇したのは2016年前半のことだ、このときゴールドの29.9%上昇に伴いシルバーは50.2%急騰した。SILは6.9か月で247.8%上昇し素晴らしいものだった。しかしシルバーを主産物とする鉱山株は遙かに良かった。シルバー専業のFirst Majestic株は月へも登らんばかりであり、同じ期間に633.9%も上昇した!SILの上昇は控えめなものだ。
The
key takeaway here is avoid SIL. The world’s leading
silver-stock ETF is increasingly burdened with primary gold miners
with insufficient silver exposure. And having over 1/8th of your
capital allocated to silver miners squandered in Korea Zinc is sheer
madness! If you want to leverage silver’s coming huge mean
reversion higher relative to gold, it’s far better to deploy in
smaller purer primary silver miners alone.
大切なことはSILを回避することだ。世界的に著名な銀鉱株ETFは金鉱株に大きく希釈されておりシルバーの露出が減っている。しかも当貸金の1/8は銀鉱株であないKorea Zincに投じられる!これから訪れる対ゴールドでのシルバーの平均回帰を望むなら、純粋な銀鉱山を選ぶことだ。
大切なことはSILを回避することだ。世界的に著名な銀鉱株ETFは金鉱株に大きく希釈されておりシルバーの露出が減っている。しかも当貸金の1/8は銀鉱株であないKorea Zincに投じられる!これから訪れる対ゴールドでのシルバーの平均回帰を望むなら、純粋な銀鉱山を選ぶことだ。
One
of my core missions at Zeal is relentlessly studying the
silver-stock world to uncover the stocks with superior fundamentals
and upside potential. The trading books in both our popular
weekly and
monthly
newsletters are currently full of these better gold and silver
miners. Mostly added in recent months as these stocks
recovered from
deep lows, our unrealized gains are already running as high as
87% this week!
If
you want to multiply your capital in the markets, you have to
stay informed. Our newsletters are a great way, easy to read
and affordable. They draw on my vast experience, knowledge, wisdom,
and ongoing research to explain what’s going on in the markets, why,
and how to trade them with specific stocks. As of Q4 we’ve
recommended and realized 1076 newsletter stock trades since 2001,
averaging annualized realized gains of +16.1%! That’s nearly double
the long-term stock-market average.
Subscribe today
for just $12 per issue!
The
bottom line is the major silver miners are struggling. With silver
falling to nearly a quarter-century low relative to gold in Q4, the
miners’ results were naturally weak. Mining costs surged as
production kept waning, reflecting the ongoing trend of major silver
miners increasingly diversifying into gold. But silver-mining
profits are still primed to explode higher as silver continues
climbing in its young upleg with gold.
要約すると、大手銀鉱会社は苦悶している。シルバーはQ4に対ゴールドで四半世紀ぶりの安値になった、当然鉱山の決算は良くない。生産量低下で採掘コストは急増している、そのため大手銀鉱会社はゴールドへに分散している。しかしゴールドとともにシルバー価格が上昇すると銀鉱会社の利益は爆発的に増えるものだ。
要約すると、大手銀鉱会社は苦悶している。シルバーはQ4に対ゴールドで四半世紀ぶりの安値になった、当然鉱山の決算は良くない。生産量低下で採掘コストは急増している、そのため大手銀鉱会社はゴールドへに分散している。しかしゴールドとともにシルバー価格が上昇すると銀鉱会社の利益は爆発的に増えるものだ。
ETFを作れるほどに大手銀行株というものは残されていない、そのためSILの多くは金鉱株になっている。純粋な銀鉱株に較べるとSILの潜在上昇力はわずかなものだ。希釈された銀鉱株ETFよりも純粋な銀鉱銘柄を買うと投資家ははるかに報われるだろう。そういう銘柄はシルバー回復に伴い急騰するだろう。
Adam Hamilton, CPA March 29, 2019 Subscribe