Latest revenue
—
as of 2025-12-31
Latest net income
$2.84B
as of 2025-12-31
Net margin
—
as of 2025-12-31
Community sentiment
Where do you think SIVR is heading?
Keep private notes on SIVR — thesis, target price, catalysts to watch.
Visible only to you. Never shared. Never used to train AI.
SIVR vs S&P 500 · rebased to 100
Live market
delayed ≤15 min- Market cap
- $4.53B
- Enterprise value
- $4.53B
- P/E (trailing)
- 1.6×
- Forward P/E
- —
- P/B
- 14.15×
- Dividend yield
- 0.0%
- 52-wk high
- $115.26
- 52-wk low
- $33.63
- Beta
- —
- Shares out
- 73.0M
What this company does
Item 1. Business The purpose of the abrdn Silver ETF Trust (the “Trust”) is to own silver transferred to the Trust in exchange for shares issued by the Trust (“Shares”). Each Share represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust. The assets of the Trust consist solely of silver bullion. The Trust was formed on July 20, 2009 when an initial deposit of silver was made in exchange for the issuance of two Baskets (a “Basket” consists of 50,000 Shares). The sponsor of the Trust is abrdn ETFs Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”) and the custodian is ICBC Standard Bank Plc (the “Custodian” or “ICBC”). The trustee of the Trust is The Bank of New York Mellon (the…
AI summary unavailable — showing raw filing excerpt
Generated from SIVR's filing dated 2026-03-02
Key risks
Item 1A. Risk Factors Shareholders should consider carefully the risks described below before making an investment decision. Shareholders should also refer to the other information included in the prospectus and this report, including the Trust’s financial statements and the related notes. RISKS RELATED TO SILVER The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of the silver held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of silver could materially adversely affect an investment in the Shares. The Shares are designed to mirror as closely as possible the performance of the price of physical silver, and the value of the Shares relates directly to the value of the silver held by the…
AI summary unavailable — showing raw filing excerpt
Generated from SIVR's filing dated 2026-03-02
ActaClear Score
Computed from 5 years of SEC fundamentals + latest market data, ranked within Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers (127 peers). 10 = best in industry, 5 = median, 0 = worst. Refreshed Jun 10, 2026.
Fair value · DCF
Methodology + caveats (click to expand)
Method. 10-year forecast of free cash flow, discounted at the company's WACC, with a Gordon-growth terminal at year 10. FCF is proxied by last fiscal-year net income (proper FCF needs CFO − CapEx by year, which we don't store yet). Beta defaults to 1.0 when not reported.
Why DCF is fragile. Treat the output as a thinking aid, not a verdict. Honest weaknesses of any DCF:
- Growth is the dominant assumption. No one can foresee 10 years of growth — small changes in the slider can double or halve fair value. The reverse-DCF readout above tells you what the market is implicitly assuming; ask yourself whether that's realistic before trusting either number.
- Terminal value dominates. In most DCFs, 60-80% of the answer comes from the terminal-value calculation — i.e., everything AFTER year 10. A 0.5pp change in terminal growth, or in WACC, can swing fair value by 20-30%.
- WACC is itself a guess. We use a textbook CAPM cost of equity (Rf 4.3%, MRP 5.5%, β from the quote) plus a 6% pretax cost of debt — none of these are the company's actual marginal financing cost.
- No moat / disruption modelling. The model assumes the company keeps earning whatever it earns today, compounding cleanly. Competitive shifts, regulatory action, and technology disruption can invalidate the forecast overnight.
- Net income ≠ free cash flow. For capex-heavy names (semis, telcos) net income overstates distributable cash. For low-capex names (software) it understates. Both reduce the precision of the FV figure.
- Reflexivity. A high stock price often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy via better hiring, financing, and customer trust. DCF can't see this.
Take the DCF, the reverse-DCF implied growth, the historical multiples, and the community sentiment together. When they agree, conviction. When they disagree, the disagreement is the most informative thing on the page.
Historical multiples
How does SIVR's current valuation compare to its own past?
P/E uses year-end weekly close ÷ (net income ÷ shares outstanding today). Held shares constant at today's count, which understates the per-share earnings improvement from buybacks over the period. PEG uses 5y revenue CAGR as a proxy for EPS growth — close, but not identical (margin expansion or dilution can drive a wedge). Best read as a comparator across companies and industries, not as a precise replica of historical multiples.