February 13, 2026
Silver This Week in Context for February 2026
Executive summary
Silver ended the week (assumed week ending February 12, 2026) still in “post-blowoff” mode: sharp, violent mean reversion after January’s peak, with liquidity and leverage dynamics (especially margin and options hedging) frequently overpowering slower-moving supply–demand fundamentals. [1]
Using the spot proxy series you provided (SI OHLC), this week’s silver spot range was approximately $63.91–$86.10/oz, with a Feb 12 close of ~$75.68/oz. That close is about -1.34% vs last week’s Feb 5 close (~$76.71/oz) and about -3.63% vs a Jan 31 proxy (Jan 30 close ~$78.53/oz, since Jan 31 was a weekend). The print at ~$86 also aligns with London Bullion Market Association[2] published “latest pricing” around that level during the period. [3]
What mattered most this week was not a single macro data point but the interaction of (a) a still-jittery macro backdrop (USD and rate expectations), (b) structural positioning/forced deleveraging after margin changes, and (c) persistent retail and “fast money” participation that has made silver trade more like a high-beta risk asset than a sleepy precious metal. [4]
Price action and volatility regime
The big picture remains the same as your January baseline: silver’s rally into late January looked momentum- and positioning-driven, and the subsequent downdraft has been violent enough to reset positioning and liquidity in waves rather than in one clean flush. [5]
Two “market plumbing” items continue to dominate interpretation:
First, margin policy became a first-order driver. CME Group[6] raised margin requirements again for COMEX gold and silver futures (Reuters described it as the third hike since a new percentage-based method was adopted in mid-January), with silver margins for the non-heightened risk profile moving up materially (Reuters reported COMEX 5000 Silver Futures margin rising from 15% to 18%, effective after the close on Feb 6). Margin hikes mechanically force some traders to reduce exposure—often by selling into weakness—amplifying downside tails and intraday air pockets. [7]
Second, participation broadened into smaller contracts and options, reinforcing feedback loops. CME highlighted elevated activity in products around silver; separate market coverage noted record bursts in micro contracts and options during the late-January volatility window. [8]
A practical implication for readers: this is not a regime where “the fundamental fair value” is the primary short-horizon anchor. In the current regime, who is forced to act (margins, VAR, options hedging, risk parity de-grossing) can dominate why they act. [9]
Macro drivers this week
Macro inputs mattered mainly through the usual silver transmission channels—USD, real yields/financial conditions, and risk sentiment—but the week’s tone is best summarized as “macro uncertainty with intermittent risk-off impulses,” not a clean pro-inflation or pro-growth narrative.
USD and rates: Reuters’ broader commodity coverage tied part of the early-February selloff to a firmer U.S. dollar and shifting perceptions around U.S. monetary policy leadership, which tends to pressure dollar-priced metals at the margin (and vice versa). [10] For readers tracking data directly, the trade-weighted dollar index and 10-year TIPS (real) yields remain two of the most reliable macro dashboards for silver. [11]
Fed commentary and event risk: This week also sits in the shadow of delayed U.S. data releases (linked in coverage to shutdown-related disruptions). For the week ending Feb 12, the market was looking ahead to the January 2026 CPI release scheduled for Feb 13, 2026—a key “next catalyst” because it can reprice real yields and the expected path of policy. [12]
Risk sentiment: Reuters also described a cross-commodity slump that rattled broader markets in early February, with precious metals pulled into the turbulence. Even when longer-term narratives remain bullish, acute risk-off episodes can still create short, sharp drawdowns as leverage comes out. [10]
ETF flows and physical demand signals
ETF flows (SLV, SIVR, and context)
In a “normal” silver week, ETF flows are often the best high-frequency proxy for investor demand. In February 2026, flows have been notable not just in size but in behavior: inflows arriving during extreme drawdowns.
iShares Silver Trust[13]: The Financial Times[14] reported that retail investors put roughly $430 million into SLV in six trading days up to Feb 5, and that Jan 30 alone (the day described as a ~27% spot crash) saw over $100 million go into the fund. This is consistent with a “buy-the-crash lottery ticket” dynamic rather than classic de-risking. [15] In addition, ETF.com highlighted a single day where flows into SLV dominated creation activity (reported as $3.4B flows into SLV in a daily flow recap around early February). [16]
abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF[17]: Public dashboards show SIVR as the clear #2 physically backed U.S. silver product by assets (ETFDB listed total assets around $6.2B with a one-week return in the same ballpark as SLV during early-February). [18] The most “issuer-direct” holdings snapshot available in this research set is SIVR’s Dec 31, 2025 fact sheet, which lists ounces held and shares outstanding at that date. [19]
Important nuance: while physically backed trust mechanics tie creations/redemptions to physical metal, not all “flow-looking” signals are equal (some are reported in $ terms, some as shares, some as metal ounces). In this volatility regime, the direction of flows (persistent dip-buying) is at least as informative as point estimates. [20]
Physical market signals (coins/bars and wholesale tightness)
Two physical signals are worth keeping on the dashboard:
London vault holdings: LBMA’s latest London vault data showed ~27,729 tonnes of silver held in London vaults at end-January 2026, a 0.3% month-over-month decline. In an already tight narrative, even small headline drawdowns matter because they can coincide with tighter “free float” in deliverable/available bars during stress episodes. [21]
Investment demand outlook (coins/bars emphasis): The Silver Institute[22] said 2026 is expected to be a sixth consecutive annual market deficit and specifically pointed to rising physical investment as an offset to softer industrial/jewelry demand. Reuters summarized the Institute’s outlook as a deficit on the order of ~67 million ounces with physical investment rising and industrial fabrication softening due to PV substitution. [23]
Mining supply, notable producer updates, and geopolitical risk
Producer guidance and supply visibility
On the supply side, what’s notable is the contrast between (a) multi-year deficit narratives and (b) near-term operational and guidance revisions that remind markets silver supply is not frictionless.
Fresnillo plc[24]: Fresnillo’s late-January production materials include forward-looking detail on expected grades, and external reporting indicated the company trimmed 2026 outlook vs prior expectations (a reminder that even “big” producers can revise paths due to sequencing, shaft projects, or operational realities). [25]
Pan American Silver[26]: Pan American’s guidance update projected attributable silver production in a wide band for 2026 (25–27 Moz), underscoring that growth in output is expected but not necessarily immediate or evenly distributed through the year. [27]
First Majestic Silver Corp.[28]: First Majestic’s production/outlook communication (with an investor call scheduled later in February) adds to the cadence of “producer updates” that investors may use to sanity-check whether higher prices translate into higher near-term supply. [29]
Geopolitical and ESG-sensitive supply disruptions
A genuinely market-relevant geopolitical development (with ESG and security implications) came from Vizsla Silver Corp.[30] operations in Sinaloa[31], Mexico[32]: Reuters and the AP reported on the abduction of mine workers and subsequent discoveries of bodies during the search, amid cartel violence and a heavy security response. Even when such events do not immediately remove large tonnage from global supply, they can affect perceived operating risk and the required return for investing in certain jurisdictions—an “ESG-adjacent” channel that can matter for capital allocation in miners and developers. [33]
Futures and options positioning
Two positioning layers matter most for “this week in silver”:
Futures open interest and leverage: After the late-January surge, indicators showed COMEX silver futures open interest retreating week-over-week (one tracked series put it around 143k contracts, down from ~157k the week prior). The direction is consistent with a deleveraging phase following margin hikes. [34]
COT positioning (large specs vs commercials): The most recent readily referenced commitments snapshot for COMEX silver in this research set is the COT report dated Feb 3, 2026. This report is inherently lagged (positions are “as of Tuesday”), but it remains the best standard tool for tracking whether non-commercial exposure is rebuilding or continuing to compress after volatility shocks. [35]
A useful interpretation frame (consistent with your January baseline): in a “meme + macro + margin” environment, positioning can flip faster than physical supply chains—so the COT trajectory can be as important as headline deficit narratives for timing risk. [36]
Snapshot table and actionable takeaways
This week versus January baseline
| Metric | January 2026 baseline | Week ending Feb 12, 2026 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spot proxy price range (USD/oz) | ~$70.40–$121.76 (Jan trading range in your series) | ~$63.91–$86.10 (this week) | This week’s high is consistent with LBMA “latest” prints near mid-$80s. [37] |
| Spot proxy close (USD/oz) | ~$78.53 (Jan 30 proxy for Jan 31) | ~$75.68 | ~-3.63% vs Jan 31 proxy; ~-1.34% vs Feb 5 close. (Computed from your SI OHLC file.) |
| ETF scale (AUM, $MM) | — | SLV ~$42,945; SIVR ~$6,197 | Sizes from ETFDB snapshot around Feb 11. [38] |
| Notable ETF flow behavior | Jan 30 saw strong dip-buying | Dip-buying persisted into early Feb | FT reported >$100m into SLV on Jan 30; ~$430m into SLV over six sessions to Feb 5. [15] |
| Industrial demand “tone” | Tightness narrative dominant in January writeup | PV substitution and softer fabrication highlighted | Silver Institute expects industrial fabrication down (~-2%) but still large; deficit persists. [23] |
| Supply-side headline risk | Producer ramp narratives | Producer guidance revisions + jurisdiction risk | Fresnillo guidance revisions; Mexico security shock (Vizsla). [39] |
Key takeaways
- Silver is still trading in a post-parabolic, margin-sensitive regime, meaning leverage mechanics and liquidity can dominate fundamentals day-to-day. [40]
- Dip-buying has been unusually resilient, particularly via SLV during large down days—supportive over time, but it can also prolong volatility if flows are “tourist capital.” [20]
- The structural deficit narrative remains intact (Silver Institute projects a sixth consecutive deficit in 2026), but the market is simultaneously digesting PV-related substitution and weaker fabrication growth. [23]
- Supply is not “risk-free”: producers are adjusting expectations and Mexico-specific security events highlight a real jurisdictional risk premium that can feed into miner valuations and development timelines. [41]
- The next near-term macro catalyst is U.S. inflation data (CPI scheduled Feb 13), because it can move real yields and the dollar—still the cleanest macro levers for silver’s short-horizon price action. [42]
Actionable insight for investors/readers
Treat silver here as a high-volatility, macro-sensitive asset with “structural deficit” tailwinds—but size exposure assuming large gap risk around margins, CPI, and risk-off shocks. If you want to stay long, consider risk-defined structures (e.g., defined-loss options) or smaller position sizing rather than tight stops that can be swept in this regime. [43]
A helpful mermaid timeline (if you want to include a simple “what moved silver” flow in the blog):
timeline
title Silver week (ending 2026-02-12): key drivers
2026-02-06 : CME margin increases take effect (deleveraging pressure)
2026-02-09 : Risk sentiment + USD/rates re-pricing continues
2026-02-10 : Supply-risk headlines (Mexico security) + deficit narrative reinforced
2026-02-11 : Data delays / labor-market prints shape rate expectations
2026-02-13 : CPI release (next catalyst for real yields, USD, metals)
[1] [7] [9] [40] [43] https://www.reuters.com/world/india/cme-group-hikes-gold-silver-margins-again-volatility-grips-markets-2026-02-06/
[2] [5] [15] [20] https://www.ft.com/content/3183551c-fd27-4469-8e1d-adac4ca7b5ca
[3] [17] [32] [37] https://www.lbma.org.uk/
[4] [36] https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/global-metals-fever-spreads-markets-buckle-under-heat-2026-02-06/
[6] [18] [26] [38] Silver ETF List
[8] [31] https://www.investing.com/news/company-news/cme-group-metals-complex-hits-record-volume-amid-market-volatility-93CH-4468115
[10] [13] [14] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/slump-commodities-rattles-global-markets-2026-02-02/
[11] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DTWEXBGS
[12] [42] https://www.bls.gov/schedule/news_release/cpi.htm
[16] https://www.etf.com/sections/daily-etf-flows/daily-etf-flows-34b-flows-slv
[19] https://www.aberdeeninvestments.com/docs?editionId=7690ff0f-7aed-44f1-b573-3146cc0d5c1e
[21] https://www.lbma.org.uk/prices-and-data/london-vault-data
[22] [27] [30] Pan American Silver Achieves 2025 Production Guidance …
Pan American Silver Achieves 2025 Production Guidance and Provides Guidance for 2026
[23] Global Silver Investment to Remain Strong in 2026 Against …
Global Silver Investment to Remain Strong in 2026 Against the Backdrop of a Sixth Consecutive Annual Market Deficit
[24] [25] [39] [41] 28 January 2026
[28] [34] https://ycharts.com/indicators/comex_silver_futures_open_interest
[29] First Majestic Reports 2025 Production and 2026 Outlook
[33] Mexican miners’ alleged kidnappers thought they were rival group, government says
[35] https://www.cftc.gov/dea/futures/deacmxlf.htm