How have SLV’s and SIVR’s total silver holdings changed over the past five years, and which data sources track historical inflows/outflows?
Executive summary
Over the past five years both SLV (iShares Silver Trust) and SIVR (abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF) have seen large net increases in silver held as prices and investor demand for physical-metal exposure surged, with SLV remaining the dominant holder by a wide margin and SIVR a smaller but parallel mover; public trackers and ETF data vendors capture holdings and flows but the supplied sources do not deliver a precise, month-by-month five‑year series for either fund [1] [2] [3].
1. SLV’s absolute holdings: big, volatile, dominant
Multiple data summaries in the reporting portray SLV as the largest U.S.-listed silver ETF and as the market’s “800‑lb gorilla,” with very large quantities of silver in trust — figures reported include 15,230 metric tons (ETF Database / U.S. News summary) and ~516.5 million troy ounces in other coverage — underscoring SLV’s scale relative to peers [1] [4]. These snapshots reflect that SLV’s total holdings have expanded materially alongside price rallies and investor inflows over the last few years, but the provided sources give only point-in-time totals and fund AUM commentary rather than a complete five‑year time series [1] [3].
2. SIVR’s holdings: smaller, cost‑conscious alternative that tracks SLV
Reporting consistently describes SIVR as materially smaller than SLV but closely tracking the same physical silver exposure; examples note SIVR’s lower expense ratio (≈0.30% versus SLV’s ≈0.50%) and AUM in the low‑billions (single‑digit billions in several summaries), which implies its silver holdings rose in step with demand but never approached SLV’s scale [2] [1] [3]. As with SLV, the sources present comparative metrics and current AUM/holdings snapshots rather than a detailed five‑year ledger of ounces added or redeemed [2] [3].
3. Where to find historical holdings and inflow/outflow time series
The sources point to a set of data providers and tools that commercially track historical ETF holdings, daily metal ounces, and flows: ETF Database and ETF.com offer fund pages, holdings and historical flows charts [5] [6], Yahoo Finance and Nasdaq publish fund performance summaries and snapshots including AUM [7] [2], PortfoliosLab and StockAnalysis provide comparison tools and historical return data [8] [9], and niche aggregators like Composer and other financial terminals surface ETF metrics — together these are the primary places to compile inflow/outflow and holdings time series, though access levels and historical depth vary by vendor [10] [5].
4. Interpreting the numbers — what is known, and what is not
The visible narrative from these sources is unambiguous: both ETFs held much more silver at recent peaks than several years prior because investors bought physical‑backed exposure during price rallies, with SLV accumulating the lion’s share [1] [4]. What the provided reporting does not supply is a consistent, vendor‑verified monthly or annual table of ounces added/removed for each of the past five calendar years — assembling that requires pulling historical daily holdings or weekly flow files from an ETF provider or data terminal (ETF Database, ETF.com, fund prospectuses/official data feeds, or exchange filings) rather than relying on summary articles [5] [6].
5. Bottom line and practical next steps for researchers
For a rigorous five‑year change analysis, the path is clear: extract historical holdings and creation/redemption flow data directly from fund sponsor reports and the databases named in the coverage — ETF Database, ETF.com, Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance, PortfoliosLab/StockAnalysis and specialized terminals like Composer — then convert reported AUM and trust ounces into a time series to quantify net additions and pace of change; the public reporting summarized here confirms direction and scale (SLV >> SIVR) but does not substitute for the raw historical datasets needed for precise five‑year totals [5] [6] [2] [1].