Observed: SIL gained 11.38% and SILJ 10.23% in the week ending November 6, 2026, compared with a 5.09% gain for SLV. The SIL–SILJ universe median weekly return was approximately 10.1%. Yet just 18.37% of tracked instruments in the separate daily breadth series were above their 200-day moving averages.
1. A sharp rebound from extreme weakness
Long-term participation deteriorated rapidly during October. The daily share of tracked SIL–SILJ securities above their 200-day moving average fell to 6.12% on November 3, then recovered to 18.37% by November 6. This is a meaningful short-term improvement, but more than four-fifths of the breadth universe remained below the long-term reference.
Because the historical breadth series and the weekly ranking use different observation conventions, the daily breadth percentages should not be treated as an exact count out of the 98 instruments in the weekly ranking.
2. What happened after breadth recovered above 10%?
We examined the common daily history of SIL, SILJ and the MA200 breadth series from November 29, 2012 through November 6, 2026. A signal occurs when breadth returns to at least 10% after two consecutive sessions below 10%. Selecting signals at least 20 trading sessions apart produces 18 completed historical signals with 60-session forward data; the November 2026 signal is excluded from forward-return statistics.
Median forward returns versus ordinary trading dates
| Horizon | SIL signal | SIL ordinary | SILJ signal | SILJ ordinary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 sessions | +2.16% | −0.30% | +1.99% | −0.64% |
| 40 sessions | +10.65% | −0.66% | +11.07% | −0.71% |
| 60 sessions | +11.01% | −0.32% | +13.18% | −0.62% |
These descriptive differences are most visible at 40 and 60 sessions. However, an unconditional comparison with all ordinary trading dates is not a matched counterfactual: some of the apparent advantage may reflect rebounds after large preceding losses.
How often were returns positive?
| Horizon | SIL | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| 20 sessions | 61.1% | 55.6% |
| 40 sessions | 72.2% | 66.7% |
| 60 sessions | 66.7% | 61.1% |
These are historical sample frequencies, not calibrated probabilities for the next episode.
3. A robustness check changes the interpretation
We also compared the signal dates with trading dates showing a similar preceding 60-session return in the same ETF (within five percentage points), excluding control dates within 60 sessions of any identified signal. This exploratory, pooled matching exercise still found higher 40- and 60-session median returns after signals for both ETFs, but its observations are not independent and the number of matches varies substantially across signals.
More importantly, widening the minimum separation between signals from 20 to 60 sessions reduced the sample from 18 to 11 completed episodes. Under that stricter selection, the 60-session median return fell to +1.62% for SIL and −1.00% for SILJ. The apparent advantage is therefore sensitive to event selection and should not be described as a robust predictive edge.
4. Why the first rebound is not necessarily the bottom
Past episodes include sharp recoveries, such as early 2016 and March 2020, alongside failed rebounds during 2022. Many signals were followed by further price weakness before any sustained recovery. A rebound in the breadth indicator measures improved participation; it does not independently establish that selling pressure has ended or that prices have reached their ultimate low.
Interpretation: Extreme breadth weakness is useful for describing the depth and breadth of a correction. Its incremental forecasting value beyond the preceding price decline remains unproven.
5. What to monitor next
The November 6 recovery in SIL, SILJ and MA200 breadth is significant, but still preliminary. Sustained expansion in participation, better price follow-through and more convincing volume confirmation would strengthen the case for a structural recovery. A renewed collapse in breadth would instead show that the rebound had failed to repair the broader market structure.
The historical record argues for monitoring the persistence of the improvement rather than declaring a confirmed market bottom after three sessions.
6. Study design and limitations
Historical calculations use daily closing prices for SIL and SILJ and the author's daily SIL–SILJ MA200 breadth series. Forward returns are close-to-close price changes over 20, 40 and 60 trading sessions. The 18-event sample uses a two-session sub-10% threshold followed by a return to at least 10%, and a 20-session minimum separation between selected signals. The common sample starts on November 29, 2012. The current event has no forward outcome and is excluded.
Limitations include changing universe composition, uncertain historical constituent coverage, overlapping forward-return windows, small event counts, non-independent controls and possible differences in historical price adjustment. The price-decline-matched comparison is exploratory and does not establish statistical significance or causality. The universe includes ETFs, miners, royalty businesses and diversified metals companies, not only pure-play silver miners. See the public methodology guide.
8. Complete SIL–SILJ ranking — 98 instruments
Search, sort and compare all tracked instruments. Weekly rank, global rank, ticker, company, last close, one-week, four-week, three-month and year-to-date returns are available for every row. Ranking positions are descriptive, not investment recommendations.
Conclusion
Extreme breadth weakness has historically coincided with some strong medium-term recoveries, but it has not reliably identified the final market bottom. The November 2026 rebound warrants attention; a durable structural improvement remains to be demonstrated.
Download the complete 98-instrument public ranking JSON. The ranking covers the week ending November 6, 2026. Private research models and proprietary ranking formulas are not included.