HAI

Unless otherwise indicated, the material below has not been prepared by Van Eck Associates Corporation or HardAssetsInvestor.com.
Neither assumes any liability for any content on a third party website or material prepared by a third party.

Features and Interviews

   |
Poor Nothing special Worth watching Pretty cool Awesome! 52 Ratings
Rate this article
Bill Murphy: Manipulation Of The Gold Market
Written by Lara Crigger   
June 05, 2009 12:49 PM EST

 

Brad Zigler's recent feature, "Has Gold Been Manipulated?", which dismissed the possibility of price manipulation in the gold market, ignited a firestorm of comments and emails from our readers. That's why we decided to sit down with Bill Murphy, chairman and director of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), and hear the other side of the story.

GATA is a nonprofit advocacy and education group dedicated to exposing and opposing manipulation in gold, precious metals and other financial markets. Before he helped found GATA, Murphy worked as a commodities broker on Wall Street; in 1998, he launched the popular gold market website, Le Metropole.

Recently, HAI's associate editor Lara Crigger chatted with Murphy about GATA and its mission, including how manipulation would occur, where gold prices ought to be and who's really pulling the strings.

 

Lara Crigger (Crigger): GATA argues that for over a decade, gold prices have been kept artificially low. Who's behind the manipulation, and why?

Murphy: It's what we call "The Gold Cartel": The United States government is the main culprit, with "hit men" like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase, and other central banks, like the Bank of England. It's been going on for some time now.

Basically, it all started with [former U.S. Treasury Secretary under the Clinton Administration] Robert Rubin, back when he was the head of Goldman Sachs in London. He would borrow gold from the central banks at a 1% interest rate, and then sell it. He took this idea and made it the essence of his "Strong Dollar Policy" [while at the U.S. Treasury].

Then there was Lawrence Summers, who followed him as Treasury Secretary. He once articulated the relationship between gold and interest rates in his paper, "Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard": Keep the gold price down, he said, and you keep interest rates down.

Now, the U.S. [government] is very concerned about stock market interest rates, the dollar and so on. The main way to control all that is to keep the gold price down. So they'd borrow central bank gold and surreptitiously put it in the marketplace, via various leasing and swap operations. It's this gold that has kept the price from being $2,000 - or well over it.

Crigger: And the banks, why are they involved?

Murphy: Well, it's a very close relationship between Goldman Sachs and the U.S. Treasury. Half the Treasury is staffed by Goldman Sachs people. And the Federal Reserve - J. P. Morgan is the Federal Reserve's bank. They've worked closely together, sharing information, certainly helping in trading.

Being able to borrow gold - it's like free money when you lease it in the marketplace, as long as the price stays the same or doesn't go up too much. So they've made money trading this market against the specs, with the government's help, for well over a decade. And they made a lot of money doing it.

But now they're running out of central bank gold to meet the heavy demand showing up from everywhere. It's reported that the central banks have 30,000 tons of gold in their vaults. Three of our consultants have shown through different methodologies that they have a good bit less than 15,000 tons, which is less than half of what they say they have. The difference is the gold that's been used over the past decade in the gold price suppression scheme.

So it's become a very risky deal.

 



 

More on this topic (What's this?)
Bloomberg Gold Buy Signal
Inching Closer to the Gold Explosion
Why Silver Should Head Higher
Read more on Gold at Wikinvest
 
Subscribe to Our Weekly Newsletter 

Comments (56)

 Friday, 05 June 2009 22:34 EST - Posted by Tracy Erie, PA

 
Good article, but I'm not sure I agree that the govt. has painted themselves into a corner. If keeping the price of gold down is in their best political interest, they will come up with something - even if it means confiscating it again as in the Great Depression. Of course, if they did that, it would just be another band aid on the currently developing Greater Depression. I'm definitely not an expert on these matters, please correct me if I'm out in left field.

 Saturday, 06 June 2009 10:39 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
And I can't see how the argument for manipulation in metals futures holds up.

First of all, there are CFTC-mandated position limits for speculative positions. Exceeding these limits requires evidence of offsetting risk positions. The banks in question are HEDGING long off-market exposures.

Second, concentration is a straw man. It doesn't make a difference if one, two or twelve traders are engaged in an alleged manipulation scheme. Manipulation is manipulation. Or not. GATA's arguments don't establish the essential elements of a manipulation.

Third, the equation of banks' short futures positions with the Hunt brothers' speculative positions in 1979-1980 is specious. The Hunts were long--and long only--in both the cash and the futures markets. There was no hedging or risk offset. That's nothing like the banks' current futures market positions. If you look only at the CFTC reports, you're seeing only PART of the institutions' metals exposure.

 Saturday, 06 June 2009 14:33 EST - Posted by Mike Crawford

 
Hi Brad, I definately don't claim to be any kind of expert on the comex / regulations etc, but I have a question:

You say that the banks have giant off-market exposure, and that their short positions are simply a hedge for those.

Great, makes sense, can you point me in the direction of these huge off market exposures? Which make the size of their short position hedge feasible ?

Or is this data which the banks have not had confirmed by an independant audit in so many years?

with respect,
Mike.

 Saturday, 06 June 2009 16:27 EST - Posted by Edward Ulysses Cate

 
Unfortunately, those who argue against GATA's position are unwilling to do the research to determine whether GATA's right or wrong. We run into the same problem at the dojo. Someone comes in and says "Teach me to be a ninja, in 10 easy lessons." We say yes and no. Yes we can teach you to be a ninja, but certainly not in 10 easy lessons. So they walk away in disgust, looking for someone who will lie to them. Manipulation of gold and silver is no different than Madoff's strategy. Markopolos spent 10 fruitless years pointing that out to the SEC. But after much ridicule, we all know how it ended up. Same-o same-o.

 Saturday, 06 June 2009 17:09 EST - Posted by Tawfik

 
Do you think that gold could be driven to 750 by the government after one year to say that everything is ok and setteled down and what is your expectation for the coming trading rang this year . I think it'd be 850 : 1050,wouldn't it?

 Saturday, 06 June 2009 18:15 EST - Posted by Shane Connor

 
I've been an avid follower of Bill Murphy at www.lemetropolecafe.com and Jim Sinclair at www.jsmineset.com for many years now and am thankful because without them helping make sense of the behind the scene machinations I'd of been shaken out of my gold & silver holdings years ago. As it is now, I'm up eight years in a row, thank you! BTW, when anybody else in print or on TV has a commentary on or about gold or silver I ask myself one question: Had they ever, even once, in the last eight years of it doubling and tripling ever recommended buying any? If not, then why would anybody listen to them now proclaim what it'll do next, especially when they say it's all a toppy bubble! I'll take my advice from the folks with a track record of getting it right.

 Sunday, 07 June 2009 0:35 EST - Posted by goldandsilver2

 
Yes, confiscation may be a real possibility. That's why I've chosen the extra layer of protection by going with privately minted (in Switzerland) coins. I recommend this approach for it's added level of safety.

 Sunday, 07 June 2009 11:10 EST - Posted by pearson

 
if you hold gold bullion in switzerland is there any likelihood of this being confiscated?

 Sunday, 07 June 2009 11:48 EST - Posted by goldandsilver2

 
There are very reputable private bullion banks where you can establish a bullion account (both gold and silver) but it is prudent to hold the physical as well
If we got to the point where confiscation was an issue they may try to take whatever they can get their hands on but governments have been reticent to confiscate gold in some cases particularly on the basis of religious significance and/or collectability. There have already been some significant wins in Australian courts on these matters.

 Sunday, 07 June 2009 20:58 EST - Posted by codematrix

 
About confiscation: First off, in the 1930s, the dollar was backed by gold. In 1971, the US no longer backed their dollar by gold. For the gov't to come out and say "we're going to confiscate your gold for its the reason why we are having high interest rates", won't work this time around without an uproar. Secondly, there are so many banks/firms outside of the US it would be pointless. The congress/senates will need pass a bill as such, and by that time, most of the gold money will be used to buy gold elsewhere, outside of the US (thank God I live in Canada).

About the shorts: Nothing is illegal with a large position of shorts. However, it is illegal that 60% short positions, if not more, are held by only 2 US Banks. That is nothing short (parton the pun) illegal.

 Sunday, 07 June 2009 21:47 EST - Posted by goldandsilver2

 
Just remember that when you hold govt issued bullion that you are only ever the bearer and not the owner.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 2:50 EST - Posted by Dave

 
The size of the short positions in both gold and silver means that it would not be possible to deliver against them, and in the case of silver, the amount of metal above the ground is not enough to make the comex short position credible.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 10:33 EST - Posted by JP

 
The Fed is its own entity... a government unto itself. America is fast, if not already so, no longer a soveriegn nation. Our industries are purposefully being sold foreign. Our money is becoming worthless. And now someone says the cheats and thieves running the show might confiscate my investment? I don't think so. I say tell the feds to take a ride up the river in a leaky canoe without a paddle. Goldman Sachs and the like included.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 12:06 EST - Posted by Greg

 
"They're doing everything they can to keep the price of gold from going sky-high, and they're desperately trying to keep interest rates and Treasury bonds down."

I think Bill Murphy meant "Treasury bond YIELDS down".

As for Brad Zigler: you sir, are an idiot. Concentration within such a small number of shorts or longs is by definition manipulation. Show us where the off-market long positions are offsetting their huge short positions, and I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you. With your logic, you'd have to witness the perp actually pull the trigger, blow someone's brains out, before declaring the perp guilty. The perps are furtively confessing to their sins, and yet you choose to bury your head in the sand. The only conslusions are either you are a corrupt shill for the Fed or you're just plain ignorant and stupid.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 12:10 EST - Posted by Brad

 
Mike -

Yes. Table 9 in the Comptroller of the Currency's report:

www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf

 Monday, 08 June 2009 12:42 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Greg -

I'm afraid concentration ISN'T the definition of manipulation. There are FOUR elements required for a showing of manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act:

(1) an ability on the part of the alleged manipulator to influence prices, (2) a specific intent to create an artificial price, (3) the actual existence of an artificial price and (4) causation.

Thus, manipulation requires proof of monopoly or domination of the market, trading practices inconsistent with competitive behavior, and the ability to leverage across markets. It, too, must be demonstrated that the manipulative act was, in fact, the actual cause of an artificial price.

In short, the evidence HASN'T yet been produced that the short futures positions established by U.S. banks created a manipulation.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 15:06 EST - Posted by Wanderer

 
There is no reason to believe that the same government that brought us Amtrak, the current Post Office and the Department of Homeland Security will be able to manage the economy and better than they have managed these. Are you convinced enough to buy your own gold yet? If not, what would it take?

 Monday, 08 June 2009 15:07 EST - Posted by Wanderer

 
Oops - should be "any better" in above

 Monday, 08 June 2009 15:39 EST - Posted by Mike Crawford

 
Brad -
Thanks for the link. Looking at the numbers it seems that the JP morgan & HSBC total holdings of precious metal shorts compared to precious metals exposure favours the shorts dramatically.

I can see why all the banks mentioned in table 9 would want to have a short position, I just have trouble seeing why JPM + HSBC have such a huge short position compared to their exposure...

Below is an exerpt from "Pirates of the Comex" by Adrian Douglas, I think it sums up the situation well. If you read the full article you'll definately see:

"(1) an ability on the part of the alleged manipulator to influence prices, (2) a specific intent to create an artificial price, (3) the actual existence of an artificial price and (4) causation."

news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1238360122.php

"What we have observed is that two unknown banks fraudulently manipulated the COMEX silver market in 2008 with an outrageous 99% ownership of the entire Commercial Net Short position which resulted in the price of silver crashing from $20/oz down to less than $9/oz. That is a real coincidence that two banks on the hook for the equivalent of 140% of all the silver mined in one year in notional value of derivatives should suddenly get lucky that the silver price plummeted such that all those unlucky derivatives customers didn’t get to cash in their calls! Coincidences like this don’t happen. From Q3 to Q4 2008 JPM and HSBC managed to reduce their derivatives in precious metals by 6.6B$ or 43%. This provides a very good reason why two banks in the middle of 2008 suddenly decided they were going to break commodity law by gaining a concentration that represented 100% of the commercial net short of the COMEX market. The most likely reason is these two banks who have manipulated the COMEX market so blatantly are the same two banks who own a monstrous oversized and unregulated derivative position which needed to be reduced."

Regards,
Mike

 Monday, 08 June 2009 16:07 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Mike -

The banks' gold derivatives positions are priced at $106.9 billion by OCC.

The notional value of their gold futures positions, priced near today's settlement, is only about $9 billion.

How does that "favor the shorts"?

 Monday, 08 June 2009 16:51 EST - Posted by Greg

 
Zigler, you are funny. You regurgitate SEC laws instead of answering the questions. Please explain how 2 huge positions in any asset class don't influence pricing of said asset. Until then, sthu up. Not only have I heard FIRST HAND that markets are manipulated by banks and hedge funds, but former central banks have admitted it as part of their charter in an attempt to calm markets. I've seen bear raids with microcaps and the SEC actually fines people for doing it, even prosecuting. The CFTC? They do nothing but give a slap on the wrist.

As I thought, you are a shill for either the CFTC or the commercial shorts. Which one is it? It won't be that hard to figure out.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 16:58 EST - Posted by Capt Brian

 
same drum different beat, so when is all this gonna happen, bout 2 days after I am gahered?

 Monday, 08 June 2009 18:48 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Greg -

Ad hominem attacks don't contribute to reasoned discourse.

If a bank is LONG metal in the cash, derivative or forward market while SHORT futures, the positions offset leaving the institution neutral to the extent of the offset.

That's not a manipulation; it's risk management of the same sort employed by country elevators hedging forward contracts made with farmers.

 Monday, 08 June 2009 19:25 EST - Posted by Greg

 
Show us the long cash positions that offset the huge short positions--you accuse gold bugs of being wild-eyed conspiracy theorists, offering no evidence of manipulation, yet you provide NO evidence to support your talking points. Guess what? Your detractors have provided evidence, if not proof. You have not addressed one counterpoint.

Come on, tell us: why would former central bankers and IMF officials confess to manipulation in gold and currency markets? The burden of proof is for you to disprove their quotes, let's not turn this around.

BTW, my first post included ad hominem attacks, not my second post, yet you choose to mention it after my 2nd post. Could it be because you can't answer the questions I posed?

What is your agenda Mr. Shill?

 Monday, 08 June 2009 19:57 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Greg -

See the OCC report cited for Mike Crawford: www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf.

I accused no one of being a "wild-eyed conspiracy theorist." If you read my post, you'll see that I questioned "how the argument for manipulation in metals futures holds up."

So far, no one has been able to establish that the futures market have indeed been used as a tool to alter the price of metal.

The burden of proof for a criminal action rests with the prosecution, which is obliged to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with a trier of fact.

The elements just aren't there to show that banks have used futures to manipulate the price of metal.

What could be gained by banks anyway through an attempt to manipulate the price of metal downward? The price of gold has been rising for most of the decade. How are banks supposed to have made money with short futures in such an environment?

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 2:18 EST - Posted by Greg

 
"What could be gained by banks anyway through an attempt to manipulate the price of metal downward? The price of gold has been rising for most of the decade. How are banks supposed to have made money with short futures in such an environment?"

Are you frickin kidding me? Try reading Volcker's and Greenspan's comments on manipulating the price of gold. He admitted it was a mistake NOT to do so in 1980. You are just being argumentative at this point, refusing to acknowledge the fact that these comments were made. Is there proof? Can there ever be proof men landed on the moon? After all, all we have is eyewitness accounts of astronauts who allegedly landed, but we all know the videos were doctored, right?

Guess what Einstein? If the perp confesses to a murder, there's a good chance it occurred. And if Volcker and Greenspan admit manipulation of gold and currency markets exist, I'd err on the side of believing them. And if the COT numbers seem overwhelmingly lopsided, then that is enough evidence for me. If you don't believe it, go ahead and short said markets. I dare you. I double dare you. lol! You'll be tits up just like Bear Stearns.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 3:28 EST - Posted by DanG

 
People should just go around the crimex. Like its not even there. Start bidding up pogs an ebay. It would only take 2 or 3 million dollars. An the fuse to detenate a nuclear pogs wild fire bomb that would spread all over the world. An the only way the they could stop it would be to shut ebay down. An if they did the world could see there is true manipultion going on. Start buying on ebay an run the price up 10 -20 dollars a day. Then when you buy your silver but it right back on ebay an run it up again.Problem solved.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 4:00 EST - Posted by Dave

 
Brad - the nominal value of the open interest is about $38 billion right now, so it is likely that the tables were struck at an "opportune" moment - possibly when the numbers were flattering both ways by coicidence, possibly after some creative restructuring of the positions.

Personally I think it is a certainty that the cartel attempts price and currency smoothing, but I take it as encouraging that the price is extremely resilient even with these concentrated shorts in the market.

Same as the "green shoots" people, if they want to bull up the markets, sentiment and all that well: that is just going to help inflation to get really well established in the USA, UK etc. My gold has held up through the days of fear and panic, and now it will serve its second role, and hold up during a period of massive monetary devaluation.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 8:59 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Dave -

I'm not sure to what "tables" you're referring. The data in the "Was Gold Manipulated" tables were taken from the then-most current CFTC report dated 5 March 2009. The most current OCC data is derived from call reports as of 31 December 2008.

There's been no data mining there; just the employment of the most current figures.

My question regarding futures remains. A charge of manipulation has been levied, yet no credible evidence of a such a device has been yet been produced to show that the short metals positions carried by banks were anything more than risk offsets.

My question is necessarily focused on the elements of manipulation, as a criminal prosecution would be, as defined under the Commodity Exchange Act.

A bear raid is profitable only if a speculative short seller can eventually buy back positions at a price which is lower than the price at which they were initially sold. Since the number of contracts sold must equal the number of contracts subsequently bought, this can happen if, and only if, the futures price responds asymmetrically to a speculator’s purchases and sales. That is, the price decline caused by the speculator’s sales must exceed the price rise caused by its subsequent purchases.

Where is the evidence of such asymmetry? It's difficult to construct a theoretical model, much less find real-world evidence, of such a property.

From a practical standpoint, nobody's been able to explain how for-profit commercial enterprises (the banks) would have made money by SHORTING metal in a bull market.

If the futures positions carried in the CFTC reports were not bona fide hedges, they'd be margined at speculative rates as proprietary trades. The drain from a decade of variation calls would been a constant hit against the banks' capital structure.

Does someone want to take a run on that conundrum?

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 9:53 EST - Posted by paul

 
Brad - although prices have risen strongly since 2001, it seems the short sellers have still made money through their dominant and collusive activity. They sell every rally in increasing quantities (from COT data), and buy back on the steep declines. The other side being long speculators, who as a group have lost despite the bull market.

The only way this is possible is if the sellers have incredibly deep pockets (suffering 30%-40% moves against them), build highly concentrated positions and work as a group (pulling bids during the technical/speculative declines).

Can you please enlighte us as to where you see evidence that comex shorts are hedging OTC/phyiscal positions. Thanks.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 10:28 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Paul -

Look at the OCC report previously cited:

www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf.

Once again, recognize that the ebb and flow in the COT open interest data is the total picture for large speculators who have but one position in metals. The COT figures for commercials show only the futures side of their business, not the interests they have in the cash, forward or off-exchange derivatives markets.

You're ignoring the offsets if you look only at the COT data for commercial accounts; you're seeing everything when you're regarding the specs' positions.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 10:49 EST - Posted by Peter Courtenay Stephens

 
As far as confiscation is concerned, the only precious metals that the confiscation will get is, copper covered lead in various calibers.
Death to Tyrants and corrupt politicians

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 10:55 EST - Posted by Dave

 
Brad - there is no analysis of the gold position as far as I can see - am I missing something? What we are trying to nail down here is what the physical long position for the COT report particpants was at around the same time.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 11:03 EST - Posted by paul

 
Well you asked why would the banks stay naked short futures in a bull market...the COT data shows if they trade the rises and falls well, they can still make a killing even against a multi-year trend. Just last July - Nov, the 2 shorts locked in $350m on silvers decline alone (closing 11k contracts).

With regards to the OCC report. Is this the "evidence" you have that short comex futures are hedging long cash, forwards, and other derivatives? I have only skimmed through the OCC report, but where does it say the $106.9m Q408 gold derivatives position is long?

I can only see references to notional value? This could be anything, such as long out of the money puts? Or performance paying swaps?

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 11:19 EST - Posted by Shane

 
The govt and Feds motivation and timing to take the shine off gold is to have it be less appealing as an alternative to run to anytime dollar, bonds and equity markets are under pressure. Essentially short circuiting gold being an effective barometer of our economic, financial and monetary health and thus keeping more of the sheeple in their game.

The big bank shorts and their friends have done very well over the last decade doing the govt & Feds bidding, however it's important to keep in mind that they can also willingly take a loss, if necessary, to effect this capping or calming of the gold or silver market with their cozy revolving door relationship with the Fed, and the insider information from it, to make up for any losses elsewhere.

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 12:08 EST - Posted by Greg

 
CDS's tanking aren't the only reasons why the gummint bailed out the banks. These short positions put in by the commercials are being subsidized by the gummint essentially.

It's pretty clear: banks can lose a boat load of money, and the consequences are nil, as the they receive a backstop from the US Treasury, this time from the midget Tim. The precious metals market is a small pittance compared to the CDS (non)exchange. lol!

Bill the shill still hasn't accounted for his mystery long gold positions for the commercials. We've given you our half of the data: the short positions from the COT. Time for you to step up and give evidence of their long positions. Yeah, I didn't think so...so Zigler--you never answered the query--who do you work for? Which corrupt government entity pays you to propagate lies? Where are the audits of these alleged gold stockpiles?

 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 13:21 EST - Posted by Erich

 
Back to Murphy's report: The bank borrows physical gold from the treasury and sells it, this does NOT create a short in the open market but an obligation to the treasury. Alternatively, they could create a market short sale keeping the physical gold as an offset.
I have a problem with the premise that high gold equals high interest rates? Explain, pls.
But what troubles me most is that if Murphy and another report about silver is right, i.e. that depository storage reports are fake, then your GLD or SLV holdings may be just pieces of paper.

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 16:58 EST - Posted by Steve

 
"...your GLD or SLV holdings may be just pieces of paper..."

Exactly. The ETFs have soaked up most of the demand for gold and silver, but people have just exchanged one piece of paper for another piece of paper. The ETFs have paper Comex contracts (for the most part) and have served only to continue the fraud and manipulation. After all, the custodian of SLV is JP Morgan...

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 17:21 EST - Posted by erich

 
So, you are saying trust no one, definitely stay out of the market altogether. That's not bullish. Sell all your GLD and SLV and stick to just bullion and coins in your backyard and better make sure you know what's real. Better yet, buy a gun.

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 17:50 EST - Posted by Greg

 
erich, yup. Been to a gun show lately? Try buying ammunition. Believe me, I am no survivalist--and my thumb is not green. But the writing is on the wall, and in the streets. The smart money is buying gold, while the public is still skeptical, remaining hopeful that Obama will somehow navigate us out of this mess. Good luck. Even if he does, he'll have to inflate our way out of this massive debt load. Do you think Bernanke is going to close the discount window in the throes of the worst economic crisis in 80 years?

Retail indian gold buyers can no longer afford gold for their weddings, but investor demand worldwide has picked up the slack. There's been a huge shift in ownership between weak hands to strong hands. Who are you going to place your bets with--John Paulson, or some poor fella in India who can no longer buy a gold ring for his new bride?

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 19:25 EST - Posted by Reg

 
Brad, Dave, Obama, Tim, Ben, Mr./Ms. Congressman, or Whoever, I have long contended that if the US Govt. returned to the $32/oz stable price of gold and went off the floating gold price (no real value) established under Pres. Nixon, we could eliminate the legalized gambling associated with the "price" of gold. To compensate for today's inflated prices of everything, we could simply peg the retail values of houses, land, commodities, and real manufacturing entities to the 1963 values that prevailed on September 21, 1963, the day before John F Kennedy's assassination.
You say it can't be done? Why not? After all, we have immense computing power now that we didn't have in those days. And just about any fourth grader can divide today's inflated figures by ten to derive the real values of most tangible items; corresponding wages and salaries; and oh, yes, governmental budgets and tax bases.
And another thing, the US Government and corporations might need to reestablish our formerly powerful industrial and manufacturing base. Or would that mean that we would have to fire millions of dead-headheads whose mission in life is to justify their jobs and increasing power by regulating private entities to death in the name of global warming, etc., etc., etc., etc.?
Please, let's go back to the Eisenhower years when we had real, bonafide leadership!

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 19:58 EST - Posted by erich

 
greg, John Paulson owns $4billion worth of supposedly physical gold in GLD, if it's not there who's going to pay him? You guys say he's holding worthless paper. If he believes it, what will he do but sell, sell, sell?
Reg, this is 2009 - stop dreaming.

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:21 EST - Posted by Greg

 
erich, reading comprehension is order. I never said GLD is worthless paper--at least not yet. If you hold it, you could sell it tomorrow, for instance, and have cash in your account. Besides, Paulson's gold holdings are diversified, as he owns several miners. But in the unlikely case there is a run on physical gold, and the ETF holders are left holding the bag, then yes, that Armageddon in gold could happen. When and if it does occur--it'll be at least a few years away. Banks have more dry powder now, so they can naked short precious metals even more. Let's face it, the average person is oblivious to all of this--they don't know the difference between a gold coin, a gold ETF, gold fund or a gold mining share. But the public certainly knew what gold was in 1980 when they were lining up around the block to sell the gold out of their teeth. In other words, the charade can still be propagated for a while longer, until we get massive fail to delivers. We already have FTD's in equities with the ban on naked shorting not being enforced. The CFTC continues to look the other way, but manipulation only works as long as the blinders are on. When inventory dries up, they will have a come to Jesus moment.

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 22:40 EST - Posted by Reg

 
Yeah, Erich, You're probably right that I'm
dreaming, but I keep hoping that someone in position of authority will have enough integrity and common sense to return the U.S. and our economy to tis once preeminent position. Unfortunately, the great give-away that began immediately follwing WWII continues. To whose benefit? Not ours, I'm afraid.

 Sunday, 14 June 2009 22:44 EST - Posted by erich

 
Greg, I feel we are approaching a 1980 moment again, gold fell off a cliff then. Been there, done that.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 0:49 EST - Posted by Greg

 
Erich, or we could be in 1975. Adjusted for inflation, the $850 peak is $2400 in today's dollars. I would not want to be short gold here.

Reg, as for a return to a gold standard, we don't have to return to the $35 level. We could peg it starting at today's level, and from here on out, money supply doesn't increase without growth in productivity.

It won't happen and it doesn't have to happen, but some fiscal responsibility must be in place. I don't expect our elected government officials to take the prudent course, so I can't come to any conclusion other than monetary inflation and rising commodity prices, gold included.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 2:41 EST - Posted by erich

 
Except that gold and inflation don't correlate, witness 1980 - 2000 gold down, inflation up; 2007 - 2009 gold up/flat, inflation down.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 11:00 EST - Posted by Greg

 
erich, wrong again. The 70's had high inflation. Study your history: Volcker raised interest rates to 21% in the early 80's to choke off inflation, and it was relatively tame for the next 2 decades. Where do you get your information? Go look at historical cpi calculators and get back to me.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 14:34 EST - Posted by erich

 
Greg, I lived the history - been there, done it ok? Are you telling me there was no inflation in the 20 years from 1980 when stocks, real estate, and nearly everything else rose 15 fold, but gold slid from $850 to $235? Where have you been, reading too many revisionary histories? You yourself said the inflation adjusted equivalent of 1980 $850 gold would be $2400. Now, where did that come from?

 Monday, 15 June 2009 15:11 EST - Posted by Greg

 
Before you respond you should check the cpi calculators available on the internet. Until then you don't know what you're talking about. What don't you understand about "relatively tame"? Gold was up 24-fold between 1971 and 1980. I agree it was the absolutely worst investment to hold between 1980 to 2001. I RAN THE CPI NUMBERS FOR THOSE 3 DECADES. DID YOU?

In nominal terms, gold was up 24 X over 9 years (71-80), vs. 1 X over 29 years (80-09). You seem to have a problem differentiating between high inflation and low inflation.

The only scenario I see where gold falls off a cliff is if we enter a great depression, which is possible. But even then, Homestake mining was up 600% during the depression, far outperforming equities.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 15:19 EST - Posted by Greg

 
Also the original definition of inflation isn't just about rising asset values, whether it's stocks or real estate. It's not even just about rising consumer prices. It's an increase in money supply. Rising prices are symptoms of inflation, not the source of inflation.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 19:08 EST - Posted by erich

 
Greg, it would help if your arguments would have some consistency. First you calculate inflation adjusted price at $2400, now you want to lecture me on inflation. Next you are going to call me a shill, I suppose.
Yes, prices are the sympton of inflation, not the cause, so what point does that brilliant lecture refute? I never argued the cause of inflation, only that gold is not related to inflation or interest rates.
That's why I question Bill Murphy's premise of manipulating gold to lower interest rates. Why would Treasury/Fed conspire with 2 banks to lower interest rates when the Fed was agressively raising them at the same time?
Gold is a fear barometer and as fear subsides so will the price of this metal just as it did after 1980. There is no shortage of gold as nearly every ounce ever mined is still held in vaults for investment. Paulson and others already accumulated large amounts of the metal accounting for the current price, they are just waiting for you and other gold bugs to sell to.
This is my reasoned opinion. You have yours and I wish you good luck. Let's just agree to disagree and sign off. I'm not learning anything worthwhile here.

 Monday, 15 June 2009 21:11 EST - Posted by Greg

 
erich,

"only that gold is not related to inflation or interest rates."

That is the single dumbest statement ever uttered and the discussion ends there. And apparently you can't understand scale, choosing to put words in my mouth by using absolutes. Can you even read?

The 70's were a period of high inflation (not hyperinflation along the scale of Zimbabwe), while the 80's and 90's experienced relatively tame inflation, or low inflation or disinflation--take your pick. Coincidentally, gold enjoyed its biggest increase in price during the 70's, and had its worst 2 decades in the 80's and 90's. Your prognostications could end up right, but your facts are totally wrong.

I can only conclude you didn't do a very good job researching your claims--or worse. I don't think looking up an internet cpi calculator is very difficult, but that's just me.

 Tuesday, 16 June 2009 16:15 EST - Posted by Shane

 
Making The Case

By: Theodore Butler

Posted 16 June, 2009

In trying to explain the ongoing silver (and gold) manipulation, I normally rely upon a straight text approach, using words to convey my premise. Today, I’m going to alter that a bit and rely more on visual and audible tools. Thanks to Carl Loeb, I will present two graphs depicting the concentrated short position of the US banks in all commodities, as compiled by the CFTC.

Full article here...

news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1245173905.php

 Sunday, 21 June 2009 10:53 EST - Posted by Jim H

 
Where has Mr. Ziegler gone.....? Two posts asked him to explain more specifically the banks long position and he's gone off radar???

 Sunday, 21 June 2009 11:28 EST - Posted by Brad Zigler

 
Jim -

Lots of other things required attention.

The bank call reports, from which the OCC report data is culled, mandate reporting of derivatives on certain schedules to be based upon notional value for regulatory capital treatment.

Swaps, for example, represent an asset/liability mix in which a commodity return is exchanged for a money market cash flow. The asset side is the derivatives receivable; the derivatives payable are liabilities.

To make a long story short (only 2k characters allowed here), page three of the OCC report shows you the net commodity contract (including gold) exposure. Subtract the gross positive fair value from the gross negative fair value to find the potential hedge.



Post a Comment

Comment
(Limit 2,000
characters) 
*
Name: *
E-mail: *
Home page:

(optional)

Type in the displayed characters
Email follow-up comments to my e-mail address
 


Terms of Use
The HardAssetsInvestor.com message board and comment features are designed to facilitate thoughtful discussion of the biggest issues impacting commodity investors. All comments should be respectful. Insults and profanity are not permitted. The editor reserves the right to remove comments at his/her discretion.
 

Commodities Data

March 17, 2010 04:07 PM EST

  Loading data ...
 

Weekly Commodities Poll

Is now a good time to buy gold?
 

Seminal Papers »