Your message is an interesting approach to valuation and I do not wish to challenge it.
However, I read a lot of messages on this board that refer back to $50/oz silver and the Hunt Brothers. I was a young, foolish investor back in 1981 who got hurt in the brief surge in the price of silver, and therefore remember the event well. A few points:
Silver went to $50+ ever so briefly. A chart of the event would resemble a very tall obelisk on the prarie. The run up was quick and the crash was a matter of days. By 1983 wasn't silver was flatlining at around $5, if my memory is correct (I'm to lazy to find a chart). And would do so for at least the next decade.
My point is this. Referring back to that brief price explosion in 1981 is pointless if trying to price silver for the coming decade. If the same surge happened again during this coming year, I predict that 95% of the posters on this board would not be able to call the top and get out with the perfect timing required in such a quick up-down event. Aside from a few brief weeks of craziness, silver was below $8 throughout the 1980s--as I best recall. The $50 price lasted so briefly that few benefited.
Silver in 1983 did hit 15. look below. What i was trying to do is get the hunt brothers out of the price completely. I mean I am leaving out the the fact that there is less than 7 less silver today for investment purposes than in 1983 and leaving out the fact that at least .5 billion people can buy silver today than in 1983. (Soviet union, China, India)
I am sorry some of you guys are missing the point. When Apple is valued at over 330 billion and yet it would not exist if not for silver (can't build Iphone, computers or Ipads without it) and yet the entire silver market including the miners is less than 80 billion something is not right.