-
Last week I held a hearing to examine the various proposals that have been put forth both to mend and to end the Fed. The purpose was to spur a vigorous and long-lasting discussion about the Fed’s problems, hopefully leading to concrete actions to rein in the Fed.
First, it is important to understand the Federal Reserve System. Some people claim it is a secret cabal of elite bankers, while others claim it is part of the federal government. In reality it is a bit of both. The Federal Reserve System is the collusion of big government and big business to profit at the expense of taxpayers. The Fed’s bailout of large banks during the financial crisis propped up poorly-run corporations that should have gone under, giving them a market-distorting advantage that no business in the United States should receive. The recent news about JP Morgan is a case in point. JP Morgan, a recipient of $25 billion in bailout money, recently announced it lost another $2 billion. If a corporation shows itself to be a bottomless money pit of “errors, sloppiness and bad judgment,” the Fed shouldn’t have expected $25 billion in free money to change that or teach anyone a lesson in fiscal discipline. But it determined that this form of deliberate capital destruction was preferable to one business suffering bankruptcy. Clearly, some changes need to be made.
Several reforms for the Fed were discussed at the hearing. One was a call for the full employment mandate to be repealed, in order to allow the Fed to focus solely on stable prices.
Another reform calls for changes to the composition of the Federal Open Market Committee. Still another proposal was for outright nationalization of the Fed or of its functions. But if what the Fed does now is bad and inflationary, allowing the Treasury to print and issue money at-will would be even worse, and could possibly lead to a Weimar-like hyperinflation.
The problems and advantages of the gold standard were discussed at the hearing. The era of the classical gold standard was undoubtedly one of the greatest eras in human history. For a period of several decades in the late 19th century, the West made enormous advances. However, the gold standard was still run by government. The temptation to suspend gold redemption reared its head again with the outbreak of World War I. Once the tie to gold was severed and fiscal restraint thrown to the wind, undoing the damage would have required great fiscal austerity. Instead, the Western world proceeded to set up a gold-exchange standard which lasted not even a decade before easy money led to the Great Depression.
While returning to the gold standard would certainly be far better than maintaining the current fiat paper system, as long as the government retains the power to go off gold we may end up repeating the same mistakes.
The only viable solution is to get government out of the money business permanently. The way to bring this about is through currency competition: allow parallel currencies to circulate without receiving any special recognition or favor from the government. Fiat paper monetary standards throughout history have always collapsed due to their inflationary nature, and our current fiat paper standard will be no different.
It is imperative that the American people be educated on the dangers of the Fed and the importance of restoring sound money. The laying of the groundwork must begin today, so that the American people will be prepared for the day when the mirage the Fed has created evaporates completely. The full hearing footage is available on my website and I would encourage every American to take a look.
With gold and silver gradually heading south since leap day, many PMs investors are beginning to get cold feet. Then we have, over the weekend Charlie Munger, Berkshire Hathaway’s No.2 commenting that “civilized people don’t buy gold”. Not surprising – why would anyone bother since “gold is a barbaric relic” anyway. And with Bill Gates saying he’s in the same camp with Buffett & Munger, are we missing something?
Today, GATA posted an “encouragement from Embry and Sinclair”, while Jim Sinclair wrote in his “Answering The Cries For Help” email despatch:
Today has been interesting in a perverse way. I have heard from every gold short who knows my name. I have heard from every weak gold holder that knows my name yelling for help. This time I cannot answer all the incoming communications. Nobody could.
A month ago I got over 3500 incoming emails in less than three hours. The shorts exulting by email really cannot expect an answer. Even the weak gold and frustrated gold share holders cannot expect me to assuage their pain one at a time. ..
It sure does look or sound scary out there. If I were a PMs investor, I’d probably be among the first to heed Sinclair’s advise “If you cannot stand the heat you must get out of the kitchen”.
But if you’re not investing in gold or silver, merely holding them as a form of currency, there’s really no need to panic. Take a minute to study the chart below. It puts things into perspective. And while you’re at it, try to see if you can spot a bubble or two!
-
Perspective: The BIG Picture Mouse over each bar for details. Click on bars for data source.
Why did Buffet, Munger & Gates say what they said? The answer is in this video.
My Speech Delivered at the New York Federal Reserve Bank
At the invitation of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, I spoke and had lunch in the bank’s Liberty Room. Below are my prepared remarks.
Thank you very much for inviting me to speak here at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Intellectual discourse is, of course, extraordinarily valuable in reaching truth. In this sense, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my views on the economy and monetary policy and how they may differ with those of you here at the Fed.
That said, I suspect my views are so different from those of you here today that my comments will be a complete failure in convincing you to do what I believe should be done, which is to close down the entire Federal Reserve System
My views, I suspect, differ from beginning to end. From the proper methodology to be used in the science of economics, to the manner in which the macro-economy functions, to the role of the Federal Reserve, and to the accomplishments of the Federal Reserve, I stand here confused as to how you see the world so differently than I do.
I simply do not understand most of the thinking that goes on here at the Fed and I do not understand how this thinking can go on when in my view it smacks up against reality.
Please allow me to begin with methodology, I hold the view developed by such great economic thinkers as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard that there are no constants in the science of economics similar to those in the physical sciences.
In the science of physics, we know that water freezes at 32 degrees. We can predict with immense accuracy exactly how far a rocket ship will travel filled with 500 gallons of fuel. There is preciseness because there are constants, which do not change and upon which equations can be constructed..
There are no such constants in the field of economics since the science of economics deals with human action, which can change at any time. If potato prices remain the same for 10 weeks, it does not mean they will be the same the following day. I defy anyone in this room to provide me with a constant in the field of economics that has the same unchanging constancy that exists in the fields of physics or chemistry.
And yet, in paper after paper here at the Federal Reserve, I see equations built as though constants do exist. It is as if one were to assume a constant relationship existed between interest rates here and in Russia and throughout the world, and create equations based on this belief and then attempt to trade based on these equations. That was tried and the result was the blow up of the fund Long Term Capital Management, a blow up that resulted in high level meetings in this very building.
It is as if traders assumed a given default rate was constant for subprime mortgage paper and traded on that belief. Only to see it blow up in their faces, as it did, again, with intense meetings being held in this very building.
Yet, the equations, assuming constants, continue to be published in papers throughout the Fed system. I scratch my head.
I also find curious the general belief in the Keynesian model of the economy that somehow results in the belief that demand drives the economy, rather than production. I look out at the world and see iPhones, iPads, microwave ovens, flat screen televisions, which suggest to me that it is production that boosts an economy. Without production of these things and millions of other items, where would we be? Yet, the Keynesians in this room will reply, “But you need demand to buy these products.” And I will reply, “Do you not believe in supply and demand? Do you not believe that products once made will adjust to a market clearing price?”
Further , I will argue that the price of the factors of production will adjust to prices at the consumer level and that thus the markets at all levels will clear. Again do you believe in supply and demand or not?
I scratch my head that somehow most of you on some academic level believe in the theory of supply and demand and how market setting prices result, but yet you deny them in your macro thinking about the economy.
You will argue with me that prices are sticky on the downside, especially labor prices and therefore that you must pump money to get the economy going. And, I will look on in amazement as your fellow Keynesian brethren in the government create an environment of sticky non-downward bending wages.
The economist Robert Murphy reports that President Herbert Hoover continually pressured businessmen to not lower wages.[1]
He quoted Hoover in a speech delivered to a group of businessmen:
In this country there has been a concerted and determined effort on the part of government and business… to prevent any reduction in wages.
He then reports that FDR actually outdid Hoover by seeking to “raise wages rates rather than merely put a floor under them.”
I ask you, with presidents actively conducting policies that attempt to defy supply and demand and prop up wages, are you really surprised that wages were sticky downward during the Great Depression?
In present day America, the government focus has changed a bit. In the new focus, the government attempts much more to prop up the unemployed by extended payments for not working. Is it really a surprise that unemployment is so high when you pay people not to work.? The 2010 Nobel Prize was awarded to economists for their studies which showed that, and I quote from the Nobel press release announcing the award:
One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.[2]
Don’t you think it would make more sense to stop these policies which are a direct factor in causing unemployment, than to add to the mess and devalue the currency by printing more money?
I scratch my head that somehow your conclusions about unemployment are so different than mine and that you call for the printing of money to boost “demand”. A call, I add, that since the founding of the Federal Reserve has resulted in an increase of the money supply by 12,230%.
I also must scratch my head at the view that the Federal Reserve should maintain a stable price level. What is wrong with having falling prices across the economy, like we now have in the computer sector, the flat screen television sector and the cell phone sector? Why, I ask, do you want stable prices? And, oh by the way, how’s that stable price thing going for you here at the Fed?
Since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241% [3]. that’s not me misspeaking, I will repeat, since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241%.
So you then might tell me that stable prices are only a secondary goal of the Federal Reserve and that your real goal is to prevent serious declines in the economy but, since the start of the Fed, there have been 18 recessions including the Great Depression and the most recent Great Recession. These downturns have resulted in stock market crashes, tens of millions of unemployed and untold business bankruptcies.
I scratch my head and wonder how you think the Fed is any type of success when all this has occurred.
I am especially confused, since Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT), developed by Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, has warned about all these things. According to ABCT, it is central bank money printing that causes the business cycle and, again you here at the Fed have certainly done that by increasing the money supply. Can you imagine the distortions in the economy caused by the Fed by this massive money printing?
According to ABCT, if you print money those sectors where the money goes will boom, stop printing and those sectors will crash. Fed printing tends to find its way to Wall Street and other capital goods sectors first, thus it is no surprise to Austrian school economists that the crashes are most dramatic in these sectors, such as the stock market and real estate sectors. The economist Murray Rothbard in his book America’s Great Depression [4] went into painstaking detail outlining how the changes in money supply growth resulted in the Great Depression.
On a more personal level, as the recent crisis was developing here, I warned throughout the summer of 2008 of the impending crisis. On July 11, 2008 at EconomicPolicyJournal.com, I wrote[5]:
SUPER ALERT: Dramatic Slowdown In Money Supply Growth
After growing at near double digit rates for months, money growth has slowed dramatically. Annualized money growth over the last 3 months is only 5.2%. Over the last two months, there has been zero growth in the M2NSA money measure.This is something that must be watched carefully. If such a dramatic slowdown continues, a severe recession is inevitable.
We have never seen such a dramatic change in money supply growth from a double digit climb to 5% growth. Does Bernanke have any clue as to what the hell he is doing?
I have previously noted that over the last two months money supply has been collapsing. M2NSA has gone from double digit growth to nearly zero growth .
A review of the credit situation appears worse. According to recent Fed data, for the 13 weeks ended June 25, bank credit (securities and loans) contracted at an annual rate of 7.9%.
There has been a minor blip up since June 25 in both credit growth and M2NSA, but the growth rates remain extremely slow.
If a dramatic turnaround in these numbers doesn’t happen within the next few weeks, we are going to have to warn of a possible Great Depression style downturn.
Yet, just weeks before these warnings from me, Chairman Bernanke, while the money supply growth was crashing, had a decidedly much more optimistic outlook, In a speech on June 9, 2008, At the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s 53rd Annual Economic Conference [7], he said:
I would like to provide a brief update on the outlook for the economy and policy, beginning with the prospects for growth. Despite the unwelcome rise in the unemployment rate that was reported last week, the recent incoming data, taken as a whole, have affected the outlook for economic activity and employment only modestly. Indeed, although activity during the current quarter is likely to be weak, the risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so. Over the remainder of 2008, the effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus, a gradual ebbing of the drag from residential construction, further progress in the repair of financial and credit markets, and still-solid demand from abroad should provide some offset to the headwinds that still face the economy.
I believe the Great Recession that followed is still fresh enough in our minds so it is not necessary to recount in detail as to whose forecast, mine or the chairman’s, was more accurate.
I am also confused by many other policy making steps here at the Federal Reserve. There have been more changes in monetary policy direction during the Bernanke era then at any other time in the modern era of the Fed. Not under Arthur Burns, not under G. William Miller, not under Paul Volcker, not under Alan Greenspan have there been so many dramatically shifting Fed monetary policy moves. Under Chairman Bernanke there have been significant changes in direction of the money supply growth FIVE different times. Thus, for me, I am not at all surprised at the current stop and go economy. The current erratic monetary policy makes it exceedingly difficult for businessmen to make any long term plans. Indeed, in my own Daily Alert on the economy [8] I find it extremely difficult to give long term advice, when in short periods I have seen three month annualized M2 money growth go from near 20% to near zero, and then in another period see it go from 25% to 6% . [9]
I am also confused by many of the monetary programs instituted by Chairman Bernanke. For example, Operation Twist.
This is not the first time an Operation Twist was tried. an Operation Twist was tried in 1961, at the start of the Kennedy Administration [10] A paper [11] was written by three Federal Reserve economists in 2004 that, in part, examined the 1960′s Operation Twist
Their conclusion (My bold):
A second well-known historical episode involving the attempted manipulation of the term structure was so-called Operation Twist. Launched in early 1961 by the incoming Kennedy Administration, Operation Twist was intended to raise short-term rates (thereby promoting capital inflows and supporting the dollar) while lowering, or at least not raising, long-term rates. (Modigliani and Sutch 1966)…. The two main actions of Operation Twist were the use of Federal Reserve open market operations and Treasury debt management operations.. Operation Twist is widely viewed today as having been a failure, largely due to classic work by Modigliani and Sutch….
However, Modigliani and Sutch also noted that Operation Twist was a relatively small operation, and, indeed, that over a slightly longer period the maturity of outstanding government debt rose significantly, rather than falling…Thus, Operation Twist does not seem to provide strong evidence in either direction as to the possible effects of changes in the composition of the central bank’s balance sheet….
We believe that our findings go some way to refuting the strong hypothesis that nonstandard policy actions, including quantitative easing and targeted asset purchases, cannot be successful in a modern industrial economy. However, the effects of such policies remain quantitatively quite uncertain.
One of the authors of this 2004 paper was Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. Thus, I have to ask, what the hell is Chairman Bernanke doing implementing such a program, since it is his paper that states it was a failure according to Modigliani, and his paper implies that a larger test would be required to determine true performance.
I ask, is the Chairman using the United States economy as a lab with Americans as the lab rats to test his intellectual curiosity about such things as Operation Twist?
Further, I am very confused by the response of Chairman Bernanke to questioning by Congressman Ron Paul. To a seemingly near off the cuff question by Congressman Paul on Federal Reserve money provided to the Watergate burglars, Chairman Bernanke contacted the Inspector General’s Office of the Federal Reserve and requested an investigation [12]. Yet, the congressman has regularly asked about the gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve [13] and whether the gold at Fort Knox backing up the certificates will be audited. Yet there have been no requests by the Chairman to the Treasury for an audit of the gold.This I find very odd. The Chairman calls for a major investigation of what can only be an historical point of interest but fails to seek out any confirmation on a point that would be of vital interest to many present day Americans.
In this very building, deep in the underground vaults, sits billions of dollars of gold, held by the Federal Reserve for foreign governments. The Federal Reserve gives regular tours of these vaults, even to school children. [14] Yet, America’s gold is off limits to seemingly everyone and has never been properly audited. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? If nothing else, does anyone at the Fed know the quality and fineness of the gold at Fort Knox?
In conclusion, it is my belief that from start to finish the Fed is a failure. I believe faulty methodology is used, I believe that the justification for the Fed, to bring price and economic stability, has never been a success. I repeat, prices since the start of the Fed have climbed by 2,241% and there have been over the same period 18 recessions. No one seems to care at the Fed about the gold supposedly backing up the gold certificates on the Fed balance sheet. The emperor has no clothes. Austrian Business cycle theorists are regularly ignored by the Fed, yet they have the best records with regard to spotting overall downturns, and further they specifically recognized the developing housing bubble. Let it not be forgotten that in 2004, two economists here at the New York Fed wrote a paper [15] denying there was a housing bubble. I responded to the paper [16] and wrote:
The faulty analysis by [these] Federal Reserve economists… may go down in financial history as the greatest forecasting error since Irving Fisher declared in 1929, just prior to the stock market crash, that stocks prices looked to be at a permanently high plateau.
Data released just yesterday, now show housing prices have crashed to 2002 levels. [17]
I will now give you more warnings about the economy.
The noose is tightening on your organization, vast amounts of money printing are now required to keep your manipulated economy afloat. It will ultimately result in huge price inflation, or, if you stop printing, another massive economic crash will occur. There is no other way out.
Again, thank you for inviting me. You have prepared food, so I will not be rude, I will stay and eat.
Let’s have one good meal here. Let’s make it a feast. Then I ask you, I plead with you, I beg you all, walk out of here with me, never to come back. It’s the moral and ethical thing to do. Nothing good goes on in this place. Let’s lock the doors and leave the building to the spiders, moths and four-legged rats.
Special thanks to the following, who helped me research and collect data for this paper: Stephen Davis, Bob English, Jon Lyons, Ash Navabi, Joseph Nelson, Nick Nero, Antony Zegers
-
If you’ve checked out the Compare AFE, BullionVault & GoldMoney page, you’d have noticed that BullionVault & GoldMoney packaged their bullion dealership and custodian services very differently. It’s interesting to note how the same service can be approached in such a contrasting manner.
There is however, one other significant difference not highlighted in the comparison. It’s not so much about differences in the companies’ services. Rather, it’s over differing opinions of the founders in the much debated the matter of Gold Cartel and Gold Price Manipulation.
In a recent interview by Chris Martenson, Paul Tustain of BullionVault said:
I am not really strongly in the manipulation camp but I do agree that market manipulation tends to happen in futures contracts. This is not anything to do with gold or silver specifically, it is to do with the way futures contracts work.
-
London AM & PM Fix
There are many gold and silver market abnormalities that have been cited as supporting evidence of gold price suppression by the “manipulation camp”. One of the more interesting ones is the phenomenon where the London AM fix has almost always been higher than the PM fix for over a decade. When asked concerning the above, Paul responded:
But I think there is a rational market explanation and I do not think that market manipulation by governments is in fact it. I think it is much simpler than that.
-
It appears that he is using the Occam’s Razor, which is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. Put another way, it admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. It should be noted however, that simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Listen to Paul’s take on this issue and make your own conclusion after reading a detailed analysis of this phenomenon by Adrian Douglas. Paul also goes into great detail showing how other perceived market abnormalities or statistical aberrations can be explained away without invoking the manipulation theory, including the much discussed bullion banks’ short position in the futures market. A transcript of the interview can be found here. -
Gold trading is influenced by government intervention
On the other corner of the gold price manipulation ring, we have James Turk, founder of GoldMoney, director of GoldMoney Foundation and consultant at Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA). James’ work exposing the gold price suppression scheme is all over the web.
The investigation into the inner workings of the gold market that are out of public view and decided behind closed doors in central banks is an ongoing effort. It has been that way for years, and fortunately, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee has been there relentlessly compiling the mounting evidence that something is amiss, that gold trading is influenced by government intervention aimed at keeping the price from rising to its fair value. Or to put it another way, by allowing the gold price to climb higher year after year in what I have dubbed a “managed retreat”, governments hope that people will not notice what is happening to the ongoing debasement of the US dollar…
That was his conclusion at the end of his argument for the case that gold (& silver) price manipulation by central planners has been and still remains a strategic policy to keep the dollar and the banks that support it alive. Read the full article here.
In his presentation at the GATA 2008 conference, James explained why central banks interfere in the gold market. Interesting to note how he foresaw the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by predicting another Bear Stearns collapse was only several months away.
So there you have it – two innovative entrepreneurs, two great companies, very contrasting views on PMs market manipulation but they share one very important thing in common – Their relationships with their clients are on a Bailee/Bailor basis and not on a Debtor/Creditor basis. Both companies vouch in no uncertain terms that their clients have complete ownership of physical bullion in their custody. Their At the end of the day, I think that’s what matters most.
5 days ago saw the 150th year anniversary of an event so historic that a very select few even noticed: the birth of US fiat. Bloomberg was one of the few who commemorated the birth of modern US currency: “On April 2, 1862, the first greenback left the U.S. Treasury, marking the start of a new era in the American monetary system…. The greenbacks were originally intended to be a temporary emergency-financing measure. Almost bankrupt, the Treasury needed money to pay suppliers and troops. The plan was to print a limited supply of United States notes to meet the crisis and then have people convert the currency into Treasury bonds. But United States notes grew in popularity and continued to circulate.” The rest, as they say is history.
In the intervening 150 years, the greenback saw major transformations: from being issued by the Treasury and backed by gold, it is now printed, mostly in electronic form, by an entity that in its own words, is “set up similarly to private corporations, but operated in the public interest.” Of course, when said public interest is not the primary driver of operation, the entity, also known as the Federal Reserve is accountable to precisely nobody. Oh, and the fiat money, which is now just a balance sheet liability of a private corporation, and thus just a plug to the Fed’s deficit monetization efforts, is no longer backed by anything besides the “full faith and credit” of a country that is forced to fund more than half of its spending through debt issuance than tax revenues.
At the start of the Civil War, the U.S. didn’t have a national paper currency. Instead, the money supply consisted of U.S. coins and a collection of paper notes issued by private banks. Technically, the federal government began issuing its own paper currency in 1861. That year, the Lincoln administration issued $60 million in demand notes, a variant of a Treasury note that was redeemable “on demand” for gold coins at the Treasury or any sub-Treasury.
These notes were overshadowed in 1862 by the issue of $150 million in a new fiat currency officially known as United States notes and popularly known as greenbacks or legal tenders. By the end of the war, close to $450 million worth of greenbacks were in circulation.
The name greenbacks referred to the reverse of the notes, which were printed in green. The name legal-tender notes referred to the text that originally appeared on the back, which began, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” This provision made the currency a valid form of payment on par with gold and silver, which was a very controversial action at the time. It made the United States note a fiat currency — meaning its value was established by law alone and wasn’t based on some other unit of value, such as gold, silver or land.
Many Americans during and after the Civil War believed the creation of a fiat currency was unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly stated that only gold and silver could be considered legal tender. In 1871, in the case of Knox v. Lee, the Supreme Court settled the matter by declaring that making United States notes legal tender was indeed constitutional.
By this time, the greenback was at the center of a countrywide debate on monetary policy. When the post-Civil War economic boom ended in the panic and depression of 1873, many people, especially farmers, blamed the Treasury’s policy of contracting the currency — that is, removing United States notes from circulation in an attempt to go back to the gold standard, which would require that a $1 note could be redeemed for $1 in gold.
As a consequence, there was a call for the expansion of United States note circulation or an inflation of the currency. This belief became joined with a political ideology that opposed big business and banking interests, resulting in the birth of the Greenback Party in 1874.
Opposing the Greenbackers were more conservative interests, sometimes known as “gold bugs,” who found support in the Republican Party and in elements of the Democratic Party. Gold interests proved the stronger contestant in the debate and in 1878, the total circulation of United States notes was fixed at a little over $346 million and the notes eventually became redeemable in gold (at least until 1933, when this provision was removed).
During the 20th century, United States notes became ever less important in the nation’s money supply, though Congress supported their continued circulation. They were increasingly replaced by currency issued by the Federal Reserve System, which came to look almost identical to the United States note. The Federal Reserve note thus became the new greenback.
In 1966, Congress allowed the Treasury to start removing United States notes from circulation. The last delivery of the notes by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to the Treasury was made in 1971. In 1994, the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act eliminated the issuance of the notes altogether.
So instead of real money, America has an impostor “which came to look almost identical to the United States note” with the full complicity of everyone in charge, just so that when needed, any and all untenable debt burdens can be inflated away. And while the latter is a topic of a whole different discussion, we present another chart which, unlike the 150th anniversary of fiat, should be something discussed far more broadly… Because in a fiat world superpower status is always relative.
-
[Active updates: Developing stories] The South Carolina Treasurer’s Office, acting upon a directive from the state legislature, has recently published a report on the advisability of investing in gold and silver. Basically, the state legislature wanted to know if it’s wise to invest public funds under it’s custody in gold & silver.
Here’s what the Treasurer’s Office has to say about itself:
Our mission is to serve the citizens of South Carolina by providing the most efficient banking, investment and financial management service for South Carolina State Government. Our commitment is to safeguard our State’s financial resources and to maximize return on our State’s investments.
This is a tall order, hence we can assume that the report must be well researched and credible. It concluded that it is not advisable to invest public funds in gold & silver because:-
There’s escalating market speculation
Current value (I think they mean price) is too high
Market possibly in a bubble
South Carolina Code of Laws states that the Treasurer has “ full power to invest” in debt instruments of the US government and corporations, but makes no mention of investments in derivatives of gold & silver. Hence investing in gold & silver derivatives may “create a legal conflict”
While the timestamp of the document was 27 Feb 2012, it can be assumed that the report was prepared soon after the end of September 23, 2011 due to this inclusion. From the perspective of a short term investment, that was a pretty good call, considering the fact that gold and silver have been taken down to $1624 and $31.40 respectively as I write.
However, this piece is not about how good the Treasurer’s Office was at making an investment call based on price. Neither is it about whether gold & silver is in a bubble. These conclusions (2) & (3) are opinions of the Treasurer’s Office, which are subjective. Of greater interest are the facts revealed in the body of the report.
Regular readers of this blog would have noticed that there are several key issues that are repeatedly discussed or highlighted here (through news feeds or third party contributions). They include:-
Gold & silver prices are being suppressed
Central Banks & major bullion banks are suppressing their prices
Naked short selling is one of the price suppression mechanism
Bullion Banks and exchanges practice fractional reserve bullion banking
Stay out of gold or silver bank accounts, ETFs, Certificates, and all forms of derivatives
The safest way to own gold & silver is to hold physical gold & silver
Items (1) to (4) are often disputed by the mainstream media and investors, sometimes referring to them as conspiracy theories. Hence, it is most interesting to see what this government published report has to say about these 6 issues.
Price Suppression is Real
In one short paragraph, this report confirms in no uncertain terms the truth behind the so called “conspiracy theories”. Not only does it confirm the existence of price suppression, it discloses the WHOs and the HOWs!
Risks of holding gold through ETFs, Certificates, Bank Accounts & other Derivatives
It has been repeatedly emphasized here that the only secure means of owning gold & silver is by holding physical coins and bars in your own possession or stored in a private vault outside the banking system. Anything else is a derivative – a paper or electronic representation of the real thing.
This report explains the nature of these derivatives and lists the risks associated with each, together with reasons why the Treasury’s Office advised against investing in them.
The full report in pdf is available for download at the South Carolina Treasurer’s website. Text from relevant sections is reproduced below with comments related to the 6 items above highlighted. Most of the remarks are self explanatory. There are, however, two groups of comments that warrant some discussion.
1. Allocated & Unallocated Accounts
Ways to Invest: Certificates
Unallocated gold certiñcates are a form of fractional reserve banking and do not guarantee an equal exchange for metal in the event of a run on the bank’s gold on deposit. Allocated gold certificates should be correlated with speciñc numbered bars, however it is difficult to prove whether a bank is improperly allocating a single bar to more than one investor.
Ways to Invest: Accounts
One of the most important differences between accounts is whether the gold is held on an allocated or unallocated basis. Another major difference is the strength of the account holder’s claim on the gold, in the event that the account administrator faces gold-denominated liabilities, asset forfeiture, or bankruptcy.
The above describes two products offered by banks to clients who want to invest in gold (or silver) without having to deal with the physical metals. For example, when a bank accepts $2,000 from a customer and issues a gold certificate or credits the customer’s gold account under the unallocated system, the bank is not obliged to buy and store 1.2 oz (at current price) of gold on behalf of the customer. It holds only a tiny portion of that amount in gold. Hence when many of its the customers decide to redeem their certificates at the same time, the bank will not have sufficient gold to deliver. This is what’s referred to as a “run on the bank’s gold on deposit”. The same applies when depositing cash in your bank. The practice of keeping only a tiny fraction of what’s rightfully belonging to the customers (gold or cash) is referred to as fractional reserve banking.
When selling allocated gold products, the bank is legally required to hold 100% of the customers deposit in physical metal. For example, if a customer deposits sufficient cash to own a 400 oz gold bar and is assigned a bar bearing serial No: AGR Matthey 156571, how can one be sure that the same bar or a portion thereof is not assigned to another customer at the same time? That’s the issue raised by the report – and the risk is real.
This brings us back to “the only secure means of owning gold & silver is by holding physical coins and bars in your own possession or stored in a private vault outside the banking system”. If you have to use a third party to store your metals, use specialized private vaults instead, because banks operate on a fractional reserve banking system.
There are many companies outside the banking system that offer secure vaulting services. Generally, they have very high transparency, including publishing audited client holdings on the web for public scrutiny (without any login required). Of course clients’ ID are anonymous, and known only to the operator and the client.
2. Reason for not investing in physical gold & silver
The report listed 5 ways to invest in gold & silver – ETPs, Certificates, Accounts, Derivatives and physical coins & bars. Notice how it highlights & explains all the risks associated with ETPs, Certificates, Accounts and Derivatives and the reasons why it is not advisable for the Treasury to invest in these.
Notice also that there are NO risk associated with physical metals. The only reason given for not investing in coins and bars is “South Carolina does not have the capacity to store or funding to secure gold and silver bullion”.
Proviso 89.145 GP:
Gold & Silver Investments
Office of State Treasurer
-
GOLD AND SILVER AS AN INVESTMENT:
Historically, investors have purchased gold as a hedge against an economic, a political, or a currency crisis. A decline in investment markets, a growing national debt, a weak currency, increasing inflation, military conflicts and social unrest are the most common reasons for investment in gold. Currently, gold and silver are at historic highs leading many expert investors to conclude that a bubble has been created in the precious metals market. Since the US recession began, the value of gold and silver has increased as investment markets perform poorly, troublesome economic news is announced, and when uncertainty in international markets intensifies.
Similar to other commodities, the value of gold and silver is determined by supply and demand, as well as speculation. The Federal Reserve, The London Bullion Market Association, JP Morgan Chase, and HSBC Holdings have practiced fractional-reserve banking and engaged in naked short selling causing artiñcial price suppression.
There are several ways to invest in gold and silver: bars, coins, ETP’s, certificates, accounts, and derivatives. If a state were to choose to invest in gold (and silver), it would likely choose to invest by:
1. ETP’s-Exchange Traded Products. This allows the stakeholder to invest in bullion without having to store bars and coins. The ñrst gold ETF (Exchange Traded Fund) was created in 2003 and has been viewed largely as a success, but has also been compared to investing in mortgagebacked securities. The annual expenses of the fund (storage, insurance, and management fees) are charged by selling a small amount of gold represented by each certificate, so the amount of gold in each certificate will gradually decline over time. ETF’s are investment companies that are legally classified as open-end companies or Unit Investment Trusts (UIT), but differ from traditional open-end companies and U]T’s. The main differences are that ETF’s do not sell directly to investors and they issue their shares in what are called Creation Units. Also, the Creation Units may not be purchased with cash but a basket of securities that mirrors the ETF‘s portfolio. The Usually, the Creation Units are split up and re-sold on a secondary market.
2. Certificates- allow investors to avoid the risks and costs associated with the transfer and storage of bullion by taking on a set of risks and costs associated with the certificate itself. Banks may issue gold certificates for gold which is allocated (non-fungible) or unallocated (fungible). Unallocated gold certiñcates are a form of fractional reserve banking and do not guarantee an equal exchange for metal in the event of a run on the bank’s gold on deposit. Allocated gold certificates should be correlated with speciñc numbered bars, however it is difficult to prove whether a bank is improperly allocating a single bar to more than one investor. The US ñrst authorized the use of gold certificates in 1863. By the early l930’s the US placed restrictions on private gold ownership and therefore, the gold certificates stopped circulating as money, but certificates are still issued by gold pool programs for investment purposes.
3. Accounts- Many banks offer gold accounts where gold can be instantly bought or sold just like any foreign currency on a fractional reserve (non-allocated, fungible) basis. Pool accounts, facilitate highly liquid, but unallocated claims on gold owned by the company. Digital gold currency systems operate like pool accounts and additionally allow the direct transfer of fungible gold between members of the service. Different accounts impose varying types of intermediation between the client and their gold. One of the most important differences between accounts is whether the gold is held on an allocated or unallocated basis. Another major difference is the strength of the account holder’s claim on the gold, in the event that the account administrator faces gold-denominated liabilities, asset forfeiture, or bankruptcy.
4. Derivatives- The product symbol for gold futures is GC, and it is traded in a standard contract
size of 100 troy ounces. In the US, gold futures are primarily traded on the New York Commodities Exchange (COMEX). As of 2009 holders of COMEX gold futures have experienced problems taking delivery of their metal. Along with chronic delivery delays, some investors have received delivery of bars not matching their contract in serial number and weight. Because of these problems, there are concerns that COMEX may not have the gold inventory to back its existing warehouse receipts.
ADVISABILITY: There is no statute preventing the State from investing in gold and silver. The various methods of investment in gold and silver each carry different and often significant risks, the foremost being speculation. As the US has experienced the recent bursts in the housing and tech bubbles, it is important to take caution when contemplating an unconventional investment. Taxpayer money (state funds and state pension) across the US has not typically been used to invest in gold or silver bullion.
Recently, with the uncertainty in global markets, the devaluation of the dollar, rising inflation, and a flat US economy, there has been a renewed interest in either moving back to a gold standard, investing in gold or both. The value of gold and silver has significantly increased in the last decade, meaning it would cost a great deal to invest at this time.
Risks: 1. Bars and coins-South Carolina does not have the capacity to store or funding to secure gold and silver bullion. For these reasons the State Treasurer’s Office does not advise investing in gold and silver bars and coins.
2. ETP’s- The armual expenses and costs associated with this type of investment are high. In recent years there have been issues surrounding gold ETP’s. The purchase price provides the investor with a fluctuating amount (in weight) of the metal. Over time, as value increases and more investors participate in the fund, the amount of metal owner by the investor decreases. ETP’s can also be split and sold on the secondary market. For these reasons the State Treasurer’s Ofñce does not advise investing in ETP’s for gold and silver.
3. Certificates- Certificates for allocated gold present an accountability problem. Allocated gold certificates are supposed to be correlated with speciñc numbered bars; however, it is difficult to verify whether a bank is improperly allocating a single bar to more than one investor. Also, unallocated gold certificates are a form of fractional reserve banking and do not guarantee an equal exchange for metal in the event of a run on the bank’s gold on deposit. This is in conflict with S.C. Code of Laws 1976 SECTION 11-9-660. For these reasons, the State Treasurer’s Office cannot advise investing in gold and silver certificates.
4. Accounts- Similar to the risks associated with gold and silver certificates, allocated and unallocated metals held in accounts produce similar accountability problems. The strength of the account holder’s claim on metals is subject to the account administrators liabilities, assets, and/or solvency. Per S.C. Code of Laws 1976 SECTION 11-9-660, the State Treasurer’s Office cannot advise investing in gold and silver accounts.
5. Derivatives- Over the last three years, gold futures traded on the New York Commodities Exchange (COMEX) have encountered significant accountability problems. Holders of COMEX gold ñltures have frequently experienced delivery delays of their metals. Once delivered, there have been many reports of inaccurate weights and serial numbers on bars that do not match the holder’s contract. For these reasons the State Treasurer’s Office does not advise investing in gold and silver derivatives.
-
Gold: April 2012
-
Having read the above, it may now be easier to make sense of the sharp price decline for both gold & silver over the past 2 days. Lets now ask some questions. Was the price action due to:
Market forces or Price Suppression in action?
Falling Demand or Naked Short Selling?
Human Traders or High Frequency Traders (HFTs)?
Historically, investors have purchased gold as a hedge against an economic, a political, or a currency crisis. A decline in investment markets, a growing national debt, a weak currency, increasing inflation, military conflicts and social unrest are the most common reasons for investment in gold
Have any of the issues above that formed the rationale for purchasing gold (and silver) been resolved?
Recently, with the uncertainty in global markets, the devaluation of the dollar, rising inflation, and a flat US economy, there has been a renewed interest in either moving back to a gold standard, investing in gold or both.
The mainstream media attributed this week’s sharp price decline to improving economy, low inflation and no imminent QE announcements following the release of the latest FOMC meeting minutes. Given that the above statement was published just 5 weeks before the FOMC minutes, who is lying?
- Developing Stories
12 Apr: Jason Hommel explains what Blythe Masters actually meant by “the underlying client position that we’re hedging”.
11 Apr:
Ted Butler, the pioneer of silver manipulation investigation finally broke his silence over the Blythe Masters denial video clip. By far, this is THE best, most level-headed, objective rebuttal to Masters’ famous words that they are “not running a large directional position”. Read “JPM’s TV appearance” posted at Silverseek.com.
Keiser Report on the same subject. His solution is the Silver Liberation Army (SLA)
-
7 Apr: Mike Maloney on RT discussing gold & silver manipulation, Blythe Masters denial of JPM’s role in price manipulation, “First government admission of price suppression” & High Frequency Sheering. Must Watch!
While the timestamp of the document was 27 Feb 2012, it can be assumed that the report was prepared soon after the end of September 23, 2011 due to this inclusion. 
From the perspective of a short term investment, that was a pretty good call, considering the fact that gold and silver have been taken down to $1624 and $31.40 respectively as I write.
More Charts: 1-Month, 1-Year, 5-Year, 10-Year
More Charts: 1-Month, 1-Year, 5-Year, 10-Year
