Political Metals

-

Jim Puplava, president of FPS, discusses the hot topic of Silver Manipulation with four prominent players in the silver market.

-

-

-

Source: Financial Sense Newshour

-

In the news article featured here in September 2011, the Dutch glassworkers pension fund (SPVG) was ordered by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB, or the equivalent of the Dutch central bank) to sell the bulk of its gold assets. News is out that the “Order” has been overturned by the court, and the pension fund is now claiming damages amounting to €10m - the difference between the current gold price and the price when the gold was sold a year ago.

Court overturns Dutch regulator’s order to slash gold allocation

Source: Investment & Pensions Europe

NETHERLANDS – A Rotterdam court has overturned the Dutch pensions regulator’s recent demand that SPVG – the pension fund for glass manufacturers – divest more than three-quarters of its 13% gold allocation.

The regulator is now facing a claim for damages, estimated at €10m-11m – the difference between the current gold price and the price when the gold was sold a year ago, according to Rob Daamen, the scheme’s deputy secretary.

It also concluded that interpretation of the so-called ‘prudent person’ rule should be the sole prerogative of the pension fund, and that the regulator’s task was simply to ascertain whether this standard had been applied correctly.

“[The regulator] has not made clear in any way why a gold allocation of 13% is not in conformity with the prudent person rule, and that an allocation of 3% is,” the court said.

It also dismissed the watchdog’s reference to the drop in the gold price in 1980, or its standard deviation estimate of 33.7%.

Instead, it pointed to the scheme’s statement that the gold price had increased steadily over the last 10 years, and that the standard deviation between 2000 and 2010 had been no more than 13.1%.

In its verdict, the court said it would re-open the investigation before it delivered a verdict on the damages.

Spokesman Cees Verhagen said the regulator would look over the verdict closely before deciding whether to appeal the ruling.

Pan Asia Gold Exchange (PAGE) building in Kunming City, Yunnan, China

-
The much awaited China-based Pan Asia Gold Exchange (PAGE) was scheduled to start trading this June after a ‘soft’ launch at the end of 2011. This exchange that could potentially bring down the Ponzi bullion banking system has been killed before it could see the light of day, according to recent disclosures by Ned Naylor-Leyland and London whistleblower Andrew Maguire.

So “dangerous” was this exchange to the status quo that it faced interference from “a New York based entity with very strong Chinese relationships” soon after the much publicized soft launch. Another factor that helped derail PAGE was the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) announcement about control over domestic Gold trading outside of Shanghai.

Before we go into the details of this news, let’s revisit why PAGE managed to send chills down the spine of the powers that be. Consider the following:-

• Currently the prices of gold & silver bullion you pay at your favorite bullion dealers are pegged to or based on the prices of gold & silver contracts transacted at the COMEX in NY and the LBMA in London.

• These contracts are merely paper or electronic representations of gold & silver with little or no physical metals actually changing hands. They are highly leveraged, with approximately 100 oz of paper gold contracts backed by 1 oz of physical gold. For silver, the ratio is about 350:1

• A very very small number of bullion banks (2 to 4) control up to 95% of these paper contracts, and hence are able to influence the price of physical bullion. As ridiculous as it sounds, this is the current price discovery mechanism - virtual paper metals setting the price for physical metals or the classic “tail wagging the dog” mechanism.

• These contracts are denominated in USD.

When such a potential game changer was being conceived, something had to be done, and sure they did. In his recently published research notes “P.A.G.E. Squashed: And now for something completely different…“, Ned Naylor-Leyland of Cheviot Asset Management explains how PAGE was killed.

Just after the publicized ‘soft launch’ (with Central government mandarins in attendance) and the noise made on the internet about its implications, the one shareholder in PAGE that had a foreign listing (in the US) suddenly and stealthily increased its share-holding from 10% to 25%, acquiring additional board directors along the way. The rationale for this sudden change in the weighting of shareholders is shrouded in mystery, however what we do know is that this entity then insisted that they be allowed to build the trading platforms for PAGE from the ground up, rather than buying a working platform off the shelf to get PAGE operational in a timely manner.

This blocking tactic at board level effectively stopped the progress of the fully-allocated spot contract in its tracks, and it was immediately clear to the international-facing people that something fundamental had changed internally. Interestingly, the key Independent Director of this small listed entity that blocked the timely roll-out of PAGE is a well-known Western banker within China, whose CV includes work for the Federal Trade Commission, the Sloan Foundation (related to MIT) and his wife is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

-
London whistleblower Andrew Maguire told King World News:

I’d like to briefly remind King World News listeners just what PAGE (the Pan Asian Gold Exchange) was going to be.  This was going to be a Chinese Exchange that was to completely change the way gold and silver trade globally.

If you recall from our previous interview, it posed an immediate threat to the current fractional reserve bullion banking system.  It was the competition of a brand new fully allocated gold and silver contract being pitched up against unbacked paper contracts.  It’s not a stretch to imagine what a threat these contracts posed to the bullion banks.

The whole thing was killed and we recently found out how PAGE was interfered with.  Within hours of our King World News interview last July, I mean you sure get some hits on your show, Eric, the interference stemmed out of a New York based entity with very strong Chinese relationships.  It delayed it enough to kill it and it was killed.

All is not lost. The people originally behind PAGE have begun work on developing another independent exchange which is more streamlined and better funded, focusing on 1:1 silver contracts to bypass the new PBoC ruling on gold. According to Ned, it is expected to go ‘live’ this summer (northern). Let’s give the bullion banks a few more months!

The aforementioned change in domestic Chinese rules mean that along with every other regional Precious Metals exchange, the new unnamed 1:1 allocated exchange is launching with Silver initially, which of course is the Achilles Heel of the Bullion banking system. This in my opinion is far more bullish and exciting short and medium-term than the Gold contract would have been, as the physical Silver market is so tight.

Furthermore, all the regional exchanges mothballed by the PBoC rule change can switch, and are switching to Silver trading which is not covered by the change in rules. The contract itself will be, as before, an international rolling 90 day spot one, denominated in RMB, and the new entity is supported by the same serious players within the Chinese political and military establishment as before. The physical will be acquired ahead of closing each monthly tranche and will be vaulted entirely outside of the Bullion Banks (i.e. private vaulting facilities). From there the allocated receipts will be recorded on an electronic register and the issue will be tradeable in the secondary market with the register adjusted real-time.

This is extremely good news for holders of real Silver and extremely bad news for holders of fake paper Silver who rely on the 350:1 leverage being maintained as the world’s sole price discovery mechanism for large purchases of the white metal. This effectively will be like dealing in an RMB-denominated and fully allocated version of some of the popular Silver Bullion Trusts, but rather than trading at a premium, the premium will price the issue ahead of purchase, affecting global price discovery, as previously mooted.

-
Read the rest of Ned’s report at TFMetalsReport.com. There also an podcast of Ned’s interview with Turd Ferguson on the same page. Listen to Andrew Maguire’s interview with Eric of KingWorldNews here.

-

Related Articles:

• Precious Metals Price Discovery about to Change

-

-
In 1933, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlawed the private ownership of gold by American citizens, forcing them to sell any gold bullion in excess of $100 to the Federal Reserve at $20.67 per troy ounce. To store the huge stockpile of confiscated gold, the US Treasury built the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky, in 1936. This vault has a 25″ thick casing with a 21″ vault door made of the latest torch and drill resistant material weighing 20 tons.

There must be something very valuable in there to justify this level of security.  Official records say there’s 4,577 metric tons (147.2 million oz. troy) of gold bullion worth over $200 billion at current prices. Of late however, there’s an increasing number of respectable people questioning the notion that the stated amount of gold is actually still there, and if so, that it remains unencumbered.

In this History Channel documentary Decoded, Brad Meltzer attempts to answer the question “Is there any gold in Fort Knox?”. Featuring interviews with notable figures like Chris Powell of GATA,  Law Professor Kevin Goldberg, Senator Dee Huddleston, former US Senator of Kentucky and many more, it’s an eye opener.
- 

-

-

-
Related Articles:

• Gold Manipulation

-
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.

-

News Update:

• Court overturns Dutch regulator’s order to slash gold allocation

-

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.