Political Metals

By Alex Stanczyk | AFE Global Insider

Once an investor comes to the conclusion that gold is currently behaving as money and not as a commodity in this global economic environment, it is then clear how gold might fit into a portfolio. Instead of comparing gold to bonds, commodities, or equities, gold should probably be compared directly against other currencies. In this regard, one could point to the fact that it costs money to store, protect, and insure gold, but I would suggest that the typical 1% per annum cost of doing this is far below the opportunity cost of holding bonds in a negative interest rate environment. If the CCI index is averaging 14% gains per year, what that is really telling us is that the market considers the loss of buying power in the USD to be approaching this number versus the government-reported statistics.

-
All portfolios hold a cash component; why not hold some of this in gold? It is as liquid as any other currency with a 24- hour global market. When you compare gold’s performance versus nine of the top currencies globally over the last decade and then average it, you will see that gold has performed on average 17.1% better than all currencies in real purchasing power for the last ten years running.

There may be a time when it is deemed wise to lower exposure to equities and bonds and sit tight in cash. At this point we must ask the question, which form of money is going to hold value the best? Another question that a prudent money manager might consider is, “Do you have a strategic plan in place to deal with currency devaluation and systemic risk?” If not, perhaps it’s time you should.

-

Alex Stanczyk is an Executive Vice President of Anglo Far-East Bullion Company and a Market Strategist for the Luxembourg regulated Precious Metals Fund - LFP Prime SICAV SIF

-

-

For those who don’t agree with Alex, you have company! Listen to what this reporter has to say about why some investors are not buying gold.

Apparently, some investors don’t buy gold because it is backed by nothing! At least the USD is backed by the American government, and the Federal Reserve will still be around a year from now .. And that makes it a more comfortable investment for them!

-
In February this year, ZeroHedge reported that the Dutch Central Bank obtained a court order forcing a pension fund (SPVG) to sell the bulk of its gold assets.

The Reason? That gold is a commodity (not money), and that SPVG holding more than 13% of its assets in gold was not in the interest of the pension fund participants. Ridiculous as it sounds, the Dutch Central Bank has a say in how pension funds manage their gold investments.

Perhaps the most stunning example of what may be in store for asset managers and pension funds (and possibly retail holders) who dare to challenge central bank monetary authority comes from the Netherlands, where we have just witnessed the 21st century equivalent of Executive Order 6102. The story in a nutshell (and as translated loosely from the primary source presented below): the glassworkers pension fund (SPVG) was ordered by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB, or the equivalent of the Dutch central bank), that it has to sell the bulk of its gold assets.

After the SPVG refused to comply with the order, the DNB went to court and the decision has come out, siding with the central bank, ordering the SPVG to sell the required gold within two months. The pension fund, which invests for 1142 employees, in late 2009 had gold bars worth 34.6 million euros, or about 1400 kilograms. The total fund assets amounted to 288 million euros at that time. The DNB argued gold is a commodity and holding 13 percent was overweight in comparison to the 2.7% average that pension funds are invested in commodities.

DNB has found that such a large proportion of gold is inconsistent with the interests of the participants. SPVG sees gold as a medium of exchange, such as euros, but DNB believes that the price of gold fluctuates too much for it to be classified as an investment.

Translation of the translation: the central bank has now directly ordered a fund how to allocate its gold assets, because it explicitly disagreed with the fund’s statement that gold is money, claiming instead that it is nothing but a very volatile commodity. Very soon no pension funds in the Netherlands will be allowed to hold any amount of gold more than the merely nominal. This latest gold confiscation equivalent event is most certainly coming to a banana republic near you.

-
Today, GoldMoney announced that it has been forced to close all Dutch accounts for “offering investment objects in the Netherlands without a licence”. Looks like the Dutch authorities are going all out to make it difficult for ordinary folks to use gold as a store of value. I’m curious why there has been no similar notices from BullionVault. Why should one be affected while the other is not? What did they do differently?

Dear Valued Customer,

It is with tremendous regret that I am writing to inform you of our recent decision to discontinue offering our services to all customers resident in the Netherlands. Please note, we at GoldMoney have explored all possible options to prevent this outcome, and this is not a decision we have taken lightly. This position is unique to the Netherlands, and unfortunately because you are resident in the Netherlands, you are one of those affected, which we very much regret. Kindly allow me to explain our position:

On 27 January 2011, we were contacted by the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM), the Netherlands financial regulator, which indicated that, in its view, GoldMoney was “offering investment objects in the Netherlands without a licence” in breach of Section 2:55 of the Netherlands Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht, Wft). At the end of 2010, the AFM first announced publicly its policy viewpoint that investments in precious metals could – under certain circumstances – be characterised as offering of investment objects. The AFM demanded that we cease to do so until we agreed to subject our business to their regulation by applying for a licence as an offeror of investment objects within the meaning of Section 2:55 Wft. Although we disagreed with the AFM’s assessment, we voluntarily offered to stop accepting new Netherlands-resident customers as of 1 February 2011 until we could resolve this matter with the AFM.

We have dedicated the last few months to working with our Netherlands lawyers to present our case to the AFM, namely that precious metals are not included within the concept of “investment objects” regulated by the AFM, and that, in any case, Netherlands regulation is not applicable to GoldMoney because we do business in Jersey, rather than within the Netherlands. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful in changing the AFM’s view on this matter. As we do not want to subject ourselves, and by extension our customers, to unnecessary and unpredictable regulatory requirements, we have reached the difficult conclusion that the only way to resolve this situation is to cease all business with Netherlands-resident customers.

We intend to resolve this issue and return to doing business with residents in the Netherlands in the future. Should this be the case we will make an announcement. But in the meantime, unfortunately, I am very sorry to inform you that we are unable to offer you our services any longer. Subject to article 10-A of our Customer Agreement, we will require you to close your GoldMoney Holding. This is to occur no later than the close of business on Monday 31 October 2011.

We have outlined below a number of possible options for how you may liquidate your current position, including the physical delivery of small gold bars to your home address or a sale to cash with a free transfer of the proceeds to your bank account.

By offering you the option to take physical delivery of your gold, we hope to fulfil your expectations with regards to the physical ownership of your metals. We thank you for your business and the trust you have placed in us.

Sincerely,
Geoff Turk
CEO – GoldMoney

-
While Dutch customers may conveniently take possession of their physical gold instead of liquidating them in light of the recent sharp fall in price, no mention was made regarding silver. Going by their terms of service, “You can also take delivery of silver bars, provided you have at least 30,000 ounces of silver, which is roughly one pallet of thirty 1,000 ounce bars“, Dutch customers holding less than about US$1M worth of silver at today’s prices would be forced to liquidate at the worst possible time ever.

-

By Patrick A. Heller | Numismaster

On the basis of the hard information available early this week, it is highly likely that gold and silver prices were pushed down rather than fell as a result of free market trading.

First, it is entirely possible that European central banks of nations in the eurozone could be liquidating some of their gold reserves as a desperate move to beef up their fiat currency reserves to stave off default on their debts. If this is happening to any degree, that could help explain the why short-term gold and silver lease rates have recently turned negative.

Second, it is possible that the U.S. government may have informed the Chinese government in advance that is was preparing a major intervention to suppress gold and silver prices and asked the Chinese to refrain from jumping in to purchase physical metals until the market had been pushed near the bottom.

Last week a longtime reliable source told me that there were massive quantities of Asian buy orders placed in the London market to execute if spot prices dropped to $1,760 all the way down to $1,715. I have every reason to believe that at least a sizable percentage of these buy orders may be have placed by the Chinese government as this would be consistent with their trading activity since 2003. If the Chinese were alerted that they could have the opportunity to purchase gold even cheaper than their standing buy orders, it would be reasonable for them to cooperate by putting their buy orders prices in the $1,700s.

Third, it is possible that the U.S. government may have directly intervened in suppressing prices, through one or more agencies that are not drawing close scrutiny from Congress or the public. The prime suspect would be the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which was established in 1934. The ESF is an emergency reserve, not subject to congressional oversight, normally used to intervene (manipulate) in foreign exchange markets. In 1970, its mandate was changed by Congress to allow the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to use funds in the ESF to “deal in gold, foreign exchange and other instruments of credit and securities.” Thus, it would be possible and legal for the U.S. government to surreptitiously manipulate the gold market. The reason I consider this to be a plausible reason that gold and silver prices were suppressed is that the major beneficiaries of lower prices would be the U.S. government, its trading partners and allies.

On the basis of the hard information available early this week, it is highly likely that gold and silver prices were pushed down rather than fell as a result of free market trading. As I prepare this Tuesday morning, the price of gold is already up more than 7 percent from the bottom it touched in Asian markets early Monday, and silver is up more than 25 percent. Investor sentiment is not that volatile. You just don’t have gold and silver plummet then quickly rebound by such large amounts. However, manipulated markets can be that volatile.

> Read full article at source.