Thursday, September 29, 2016

Trump’s Mirage of Spending Cuts Will Make America’s Collapse Great

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/trump%E2%80%99s-mirage-spending-cuts-will-make-america%E2%80%99s-collapse-great

This article by David Haggith completes a series first pubished on The Great Recession Blog

Donald Trump

In the first debate, Hillary Clinton called Trump’s tax plan “trumped-up, trickle-down” economics. It’s the one thing that came out of her mouth that I had to entirely agree with. Many others are saying it, too:

 

New analysis from a nonpartisan group finds that Donald Trump’s latest tax proposals would increase the federal debt by $5.3 trillion over the next decade, compared with $200 billion if Hillary Clinton’s ideas were enacted. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget looked at Trump’s newly revised tax plan as well as other proposals…. Trump has also proposed a sharp increase in spending on the military and veterans. He has proposed some spending cuts, but the committee calculated they wouldn’t come close to balancing the budget. (Newsmax)

 

In the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the Republican candidate’s proposal, the institute said that Trump’s plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade, and an additional $15.0 trillion over the next 10 years. Including interest costs, the Center said, the proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026…. While the plan cuts taxes for all income levels, the biggest cuts involve the highest-income level, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income. By 2017, the highest-income 1% of taxpayers would receive a tax cut of 17.5% of after-tax income, and the top 0.1% — those with incomes of over $3.7 million in current dollars — would experience an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million, nearly 19% of after-tax income…. In contrast, the lowest-income households would receive an average tax cut of $128, or 1% of after-tax income, in Trump’s plan. (Fortune)

 

Pass-through entities don’t pay the corporate rate, which currently tops out at 35 percent. Instead, their profits are distributed directly to their owners, who then pay taxes on them as normal income. A lot of truly small businesses are set up this way. But so are hedge funds, private equity firms, real estate developers, and major law firms, whose partners would often pay a top rate of 39.6 percent on their earnings. Trump was essentially offering to cut their top tax rate by more than half…. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Trump Organization LLC is a pass-through entity. It is hard to overstate what a truly terrible policy idea this is. You know how people complain about the carried interest rule that gives hedge fund and private equity guys a tax break? This is that on performance-enhancing drugs…. When Trump announced his tax plan Thursday, it appeared he had experienced a momentary bout of sense and had nixed the 15 percent rate for pass-through businesses. Or so he told the conservative Tax Foundation…. But then … his campaign “privately reassured” the National Federation of Independent Business that it was still on board with the cut. (Slate)

 

It’s not just the establishment publication Fortune that says Trump’s tax plan is a gift to the one-percenters or the more balanced Newsmax or the liberal Slate; Reagan’s own fiscally conservative budget director, David Stockman, says essentially the same thing as reported in my earlier article in this series.

Trump’s plan continues to stomp down the road of massive debt accumulation we are already on. It takes us further down this path than we’ve ever gone before and does it for all the foreseeable years to come. It gives the biggest tax breaks in history to the wealthiest people and only the tiniest crumb to the middle class on the belief that they’re so desperate that any tax cut will look good and get their approval.

Trump’s plan perpetuates the trickle-down theory that the best and only way to help the poor and the middle class do better is to make the rich richer. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore have seen to that. Let’s all genuflect one more time to the rich to hope they save us from themselves.

 

Running down the road to our own destruction

 

After Trump’s first rendition of this trickle-down plan was resoundingly criticized (hence the current major revision), Trump said this in his defense:

 

In May, [Trump] was asked about analyses that found most of the tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. “I will say this, and I’m not necessarily a huge fan of that,” he responded. “I’m so much more into the middle class who have just been absolutely forgotten in our country.” (Think Progress)

 

Apparently not! Here we are (again!) with the top tax breaks going to the top 1% while 99% of tax payers get about a 1% improvement in their take-home pay. Trump cannot get his head around the idea that there is any way to help the economy other than helping the rich. Trump knows he can sell this plan to most of his supporters who will say that any tax break is good (even though the Bush Tax breaks — bigger than the Reagan tax breaks — so completely failed to stimulate the economy that the economy plunged into the Great Recession).

Trump promises smaller government, a huge cutback in regulations, continuance of massive military spending coupled with equally massive tax cuts for the rich that are made palatable by modest tax cuts for the poor and middle class. And he promises that all of that will pay for itself. Been there. Done that. Didn’t work. But we won’t learn from the past. People will vote for Trump because they like how he verbally attacks the establishment, and they don’t see through smoke screen of middle-class tax cuts to see how much Trump’s actual plan gives away the nation to the establishment — the biggest gift they’ve ever received.

Oh, but Trump is going to pay for this by rolling back government spending … down the road. He promises to eventually cut back one penny on every dollar spent over the years ahead. (Have you ever noticed how major spending cuts are always set a few years down the road when future congresses will simply overrule them anyway? Thus, they never materialize unless done now. In Trump’s plan even minor spending cuts are kicked down the road.)

These kinds of future cost cuts are like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me four, five or six times, and I must be an idiot. I say, “Big deal” to a penny saved at some far future date when we’re drowning in twenty trillion dollars of debt now, almost all of which was created from Reagan forward. Wow! A penny! That’ll save us!

Since Trump also vows not to cut one penny for military spending, Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid — and since these programs make up two-thirds of the national budget — there is not going to be a lot of pennies saved by cutting the remaining third. At the same time, Trump is vowing to increase spending on the Border Patrol and Department of Veterans Affairs, which are part of the remaining third. So, that leaves even less than a third from which all the penny cuts can happen in order to balance the budget.

And that is why it is voodoo economics. If you think that is actually going to play out, you live in denial — deep denial because you’ve already seen similar but smaller plans under Reagan and Bush that took us much deeper into debt. Trump will take us there with our foot flat down on the accelerator. The plans of the filthy rich, like Trump, are exactly what has made this a great recession … for a few — the top one-percenters.

 

Trump’s plan is a typical politician’s wish-list of promises in order to get elected

 

Trump is also going to create six months of federally paid maternity leave and pay for that by cutting waste in unemployment programs. It’s always nice to think you will pay for the candy you want to offer by trimming unspecified fat elsewhere down the road. We need to trim the fat in every program without adding anything to the program just to lower the deficit into a sub-orbital trajectory.

The candy diet plan for trimming fat rarely works. It’s mostly fantasy, but it is the kind of fantasy that tax payers are almost always receptive to, and that’s why our deficits keep getting bigger as do our bellies as we continue to believe we can have it all.

The candy diet is tempting, but the only way to really cut taxes is to cut programs first and NOW when you have the power to do so then match your tax cuts to what you have already cut. You have to do the hard work first to prove the cuts are not a fantasy because the cuts you promise down the road will never be approved by the people you are speaking for. These spending cuts fail to materialize because they are always in areas that the other party hates to cut and, therefore, successfully fights. Like a mirage, spending cuts that are planned for down the road always remain down the road.

 

Earlier in his campaign, Trump proposed a $10 trillion tax cut over 10 years that was so large and costly that several Republican economists laughed when asked about it. He later tacked on a series of spending proposals that promised even larger deficits, including a push against illegal immigration that analysts estimated could cost up to $600 billion, a $500 billion investment in the nation’s infrastructure and a vow to restore $450 billion of existing cuts in military spending….

 

Marc Goldwein, the senior policy director of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Trump is “relying on very rosy economic assumptions that I don’t think are going to come to fruition.” The economy is currently expected to grow by roughly 2 percent a year, and economists say Trump’s proposed restrictions on immigration would be among the many things hampering his ability to double that rate of expansion.  (Newsmax)

 

Trump promises to make sure no child is left behind by allowing child-care expenses to be deducted from what one pays in FICA taxes and Medicare taxes. Since he also promises he will allow no cuts to these entitlement programs, how will he pay for the childcare deductions unless the childless pay more into those already underfunded, overburdened programs, to make up for the deductions? More candy to be paid for by unspecified trimming of fat down the road, I suppose.

Trump will also eliminate the estate tax, which already applies only to very large estates (those worth more than the $5.45 million current exemption). This is a gift to his own children to boost their inheritance. No wonder they are stumping for his campaign, as that success alone could put billions of dollars in their own pockets. (Yet another gift that goes entirely to the rich … in this case the silver-spooned children of the rich.)

Trump also plans to stimulate the economy with massive new infrastructure programs — building new tunnels, better roads, maintaining bridges, etc. That is all stuff we should have jumped on eight years ago because it is the one form of deficit spending that, at least, gives the next generation something before you hand them the bill. However, Republicans under the obstructionist policies of John Boehner staunchly opposed it because they didn’t want Obama to get the credit. Now we’ve already piled up twenty trillion dollars of debt, using up much of our debt capacity.

Some say, the sky is the limit on how much debt the government can afford because it controls the money. It’s easy to prove how blatantly stupid that is in one sentence: In that case, let’s abolish all taxes forever and have the government always buy everything with debt. Heck, if twenty trillion dollars isn’t too much, why not double down on that in a decade. Anyone for Double in a Decade? That sounds pretty close to the Trump plan.

The Trump plan also promises to roll back regulations, including those on the energy industry and protections on the food you eat. What is there that an establishment Republican wouldn’t love in that? There is, as far as I can see, nothing in Trump’s economic-recovery plan that the Republican establishment doesn’t love because Trump turned to the establishment to engineer the plan in order to make peace with his party.

 

In the final analysis

 

Thus, the Trump plan looks to me like one last hurrah for the trickle-down crowd and the ultimate Trojan Horse of the Wall Street Establishment. The trump years will be the greatest block party ever because we get to hand the bill and the clean-up afterward to our kids and their kids. If you tell yourself otherwise, you’re just kidding yourself as we’ve done for the past thirty-plus years of trickle-down deficits because that, in the end, is the only thing that has trickled down: the debt has trickled on down the road to our progeny.

Although it appears Trump has caved in completely to the establishment, Larry Kudlow points out that the Donald still needs to be schooled in a few things where he hasn’t yet drunk the establishment’s Kool-Aid®:

 

That said, Trump’s view of monetary policy, especially the dollar, needs to be resolved. At the Economic Club of New York, he charged that the Fed is being “totally controlled politically.” Elsewhere he has stated that Fed chair Janet Yellen is keeping interest rates ultra-low in a political effort to boost Democratic fortunes. I disagree.

 

But don’t worry. After Trump spends several more months with the likes of Larry, Kudlow & Company will get him to suck up the rest of the establishment’s dogma and become as much a friend of the Fed as he has always been a friend of the one percent. According to Kudlow, Trump just needs a little more learning, and then he’ll know that the Fed is really a balanced organization, chartered to seek the greater public good.

TheRump will soon give up his paranoid idea that he needs to fire Janet Yellen. He’ll learn that the Fed is not just a bunch of banking cronies seeking to make themselves vastly richer at the rest of the world’s expense, even though that is the only thing that has happened inside the Eccles building since Alan Greenspan took office there.

It sounds like TheRump has mostly gotten “on message” as establishment pundits said he needed to do if he intended to win this race. He has fully adopted the ultimate Reaganomics deficit-based, trickle-down tax plan as his own. TheRump is still half baked in Larry’s point of view, but the establishment has tenderized him, and he’s coming around nicely. He has even softened his immigration stance.

Who would have thought you could so easily win a self-interested, self-aggrandizing, blustering, boisterous, rich buffoon over to a plan that serves all of his own personal interests? The two-party system is working is magic to give the Donald a comb over, grooming him into their candidate who will, once again, make certain the one percenters continue to prosper ahead of everyone else with the promise of nutritious crumbs below for the middle class voters. (It goes without saying that you’re not going to get anything anti-establishment out of Hillary, so I don’t even need to make that argument. The Democrats already solved that concern for their corporate cronies by cheating Bernie out of a fair race; but what else is new?)

 

Make America great again

 

One thing is certain to anyone who is capable of learning from thirty-five years of history: the debt under Trump will be great … really great. It’ll be a great debt like you’ve never seen before, and the Fed will be great, too. It’ll all be great again once TheRump finishes his schooling under Kudlow and Moore and other Republican apperatchiks who have been given the task of tutoring him in the Established Dogma.

It may take them another year to file off the Donald’s remaining edges and get him to realize that cheap foreign labor is good for American businesses, too, and to knock off his opposition to free trade, which is also good for American business stockholders and CEOs (though not at all good for American workers and average citizens). The rich are going to love Trump’s plan — really love it! Just wait. You’ll see.

 

The Rate Coalition, which lists Boeing Co., Ford Motor Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. among corporate supporters, said it won’t endorse all aspects of Trump’s plan but that the tax proposal is a “huge step in the right direction and we urge other candidates in the race to follow his lead.” (Newsmax)

 

See. They are starting to fall in love with it already.

 

Trump is pushing a plan squarely in the GOP tradition of sharp tax cuts for individuals and businesses, which most analyses conclude would largely benefit wealthier Americans. That’s in contrast with other issues such as international trade, where he has jettisoned decades of GOP orthodoxy and taken a more populist stance. (Newsmax)

 

Don’t worry. He’ll likely come around on the latter just as much as he did on the former. The establishment is already absorbing the anti-establishment candidate into the corporate collective. Trump’s tax plan is now in its third iteration, and each move has shifted more benefits toward the rich.

 

In its original form, the Republican presidential nominee’s plan was set to exempt about 70 million lower-income Americans from paying any taxes at all — and offer cuts to middle-income taxpayers, who are most likely to use the standard deduction. When that provision didn’t make it into Trump’s speech on economic policy Monday, observers were left to wonder just how much his revamped proposals will benefit lower- and middle-income Americans…. Moore and economist Lawrence Kudlow have been working with the Trump campaign to try to lower the cost of his original tax proposal…. Trump’s new plan would provide more modest cuts in individual tax rates. (Newsmax)

 

Now that Trump has been drinking the Kudlow Kul-Aid, the cuts have become particularly more modest for the middle class (while greater for the upper class). That was back in August with the first shift in his tax plan. His shift in September toward corporate interests and the top one-percenters was even greater.

 

It doesn’t matter anyway

 

The game should soon be over anyway. The one-percenters have so successfully rerouted all advantages to the top and throttled the middle class that they have killed their own marketplace while heaping vast debts upon the nation to make themselves richer. The imminent implosion is only being held off by an all-stops-out Federal Reserve that now buys up any market it needs to — stocks, bonds, oil, you name it — to stave off mass revolt until after the election. Trump’s gifts to the rich along with his mirage of spending cuts simply puts that gold-plated Trump finish to America’s bankruptcy.

The last squeezing of wealth toward the top one percent is likely to burst America’s already smoldering social fabric into widespread flames once American citizens find they have been trumped once again by the rich. You can only squeeze the lemon so tight before it has nothing left to give. I doubt — having predicted epocalypse this year — that the Fed can even hold things off until the election; but if they do manage to postpone America’s eruption, the nation is only going to be that much more enraged.

There is nothing in any of Trump’s plans that will reinstate Glass-Steagall, break up major conglomerates (especially banks so they are no longer too big to fail), eliminate all the practices of Wall Street that make it mostly a speculative casino for the megarich, force the rich to pay an equal percentage of their wealth in taxes as those beneath them, or to replace an extremely complex, politically manipulated income tax entirely with a simple, progressive sales tax, or to stop the US from being the global cop so that we can reduce military spending nor in any way to begin to live within our means by paying entirely for our warfare and welfare as we go. There is, in short, nothing here that will make America great again!

There is also nothing in his Trump-America-Again plan that eliminates, curbs or even attempts to reform the Fed’s control over all the money in the world. It’s all fantasy economics. He even wants an ex-Goldman-Sachs banker to run the Treasury! (Let’s put the Cobra in the chicken’s nest to guard the eggs!)

Yes, the establishment has hated the original Donald Trump, but the newly combed-over Trump (and the make-over came easily because Trump in his heart serves only himself anyway) is looking more like an establishment puppet everyday. He’s just a yappy puppet with a sharp mouth that voices what the public wants to hear. He’s entertainment in the colosseum for the Romans.

That kind of makeover of a candidate tends to happen when someone has no true ideas of his own and only knows what makes everyone else angry and how to tap into that anger. Trump made himself a lightning rod, and the neocons are figuring out how to use it since they are stuck with it. Now that TheRump has chosen his advisors, he’s looking more like them every day.

I’d like to hope that an enraged response by the electorate before the elections could jar him back on track before his conversion is complete. However, it could be that the anti-establishment rhetoric was all a ruse to begin with. Maybe he always intended to serve himself the biggest tax breaks in history (before that audit catches up with him and he has to start actually paying taxes), or maybe he’s actually a decoy for Hillary, caving into the establishment right in the final leg of the race so that the growing anti-establishment vote winds up with nowhere to turn on election day.

Thumbs up, I guess, to TheRump for pulling that one off. “We gotcha one more time.”

Going The Way Of The Denarius

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/going-way-denarius

 

 

 

 



 

 

History repeats. (Or it rhymes, depending on your choice of words.)


Throughout history, there has been an extraordinary tendency for governments (and cultures) to follow similar paths. Even regarding eras thousands of years apart, we see people behaving in much the same way, over and over. This is particularly true in the case of “wrong moves.” Over and over, people and their governments make the same mistakes, seemingly never learning from past errors.


Why should this be? In fact, how is this even possible? Surely, if a government in the 21st century were to make egregiously bad decisions, they are unlikely to be the same bad decisions that were made in, say, Rome, in the 4th century.


The reason, in two simple words, is “human nature.” Human nature remains the same throughout time. Two thousand years ago, governments were typically made up of egotistical, self-centred dictatorial-types, who were far more concerned with their own power than in the general welfare of their people. Today, politics remains a magnet for such people. They therefore will revert to type, when faced with the very same problems.


Should we cut spending to give the taxpayers a break? No, we should increase taxation and give more to ourselves.


If we spend more than we receive in taxes, should we cut back our expenditures, or should we go into debt? We’ll go into debt, and put the debt on theshoulders of the taxpayers.


If the debt grows to be beyond what can ever be repaid, should we cut back expenditures, or should we allow the economy to collapse? Well, we’re sorry to see the economy collapse, but rather than deny ourselves, get out the fiddle and let Rome burn.


The denarius was the coin of the realm during the centuries when Rome was a republic. Although the gold solidus was used as a storage of wealth, the silver denarius was equal in value to a day’s wages for a common labourer and, as such, was more useful as the primary unit of exchange. During this time, it was a stable currency. However, as Rome turned into an empire, all that conquest in foreign lands became extremely costly and it was decided that one way to offset such costs was to devalue the denarius. Each successive emperor added a bit more base metal than the previous one and, by the time of Diocletian, there was no silver in the coin at all, only bronze.


During this same period, Rome experienced dramatic inflation – a predictable outcome when the coin of the realm is degraded. The population was in decline as well.


If this sounds familiar, it should. Modern governments have a tendency to make precisely the same mistakes with regard to currencies. First, empire-building drains the coffers to the point that maintaining a sound economy is no longer possible, then successive “emperors” make the decision to debase the currency in an effort to keep the party going a bit longer.


Of course, “inflating the problem away” never actually works. Just as Rome went into an irreversible decline, so the empire of today is self-destructing, due, in part, to monetary debasement.


So, is the present-day situation identical to fourth-century Rome? Well, not quite. It’s probably safe to say that, had Diocletian figured out that the coin of the realm could be done away with entirely; that is, had he realised he could replace it with paper notes, with his picture on them, he might well have done so. Certainly, modern “emperors” have, first, created redeemable silver certificates, then subsequently supplanted those certificates with notes that were backed by nothing. (At least Diocletian issued bronze coins, whose value, whilst small, was at least real.)


But the modern-day monetary magician has one more rabbit left to pull out of the hat.


Those who believe that the dollar (as well as the Euro and other fiat currencies) is on its last legs are inclined to say, “At least, after the collapse of the dollar, there will be no choice but to return to a gold standard. That will put an end to any inflation, plus put the world back on a solid monetary footing. But this may be wishful thinking.


The US Federal Reserve remains steadfast in its position that precious metals are a barbarous relic. Certainly, from their point of view this is true. After all, it’s difficult to fiddle with the value of gold, as it retains its intrinsic value. Two thousand years ago, the purchasing power of an ounce of gold was roughly what it is today. And, whilst the average person may prefer the stability of precious metals, governments have a strong dislike for the limitations that this places on them. Governments prefer to be able to fiddle with the value of currency for their own purposes just as the emperors of old did.


What I believe is most likely to occur as the dollar collapses is that the Federal Reserve will “come to the rescue” with a new currency. Not a paper one, that has obvious problems, but one that “solves all the problems of paper currency.” The new currency may well be more of a credit card – to be used for literally allmonetary transactions. And, the electronic currency will have an added feature (at least from the point of view of the government). Since it’s electronic, every time the user purchases so much as a candy bar, the purchase is registered in the government data centre. No monetary transaction of any kind can be made, except through the use of the card. (This latter requirement will, no doubt, be justified as being necessary to control terrorism.)


And the electronic dollar may only be the first of its kind. It should not be surprising if other governments see the benefit of an electronic currency as their sole form of currency, and create their own.


So, does this mean that precious metals truly may become the barbarous relic, as governments tell us? Not necessarily. After all, many countries have taken a painful hit as a result of the dollar being the world’s default currency. When the dollar crashes, they will take a further hit. They will not want to re-create that problem by allowing the US to simply begin dealing in a new “ultra-fiat” currency.


Many of the world’s governments are stocking up on yellow metal like never before. It remains to be seen whether they, too will create their own electronic currencies, whether they will switch to gold-backed currencies, or whether they will attempt a combination of the two.


If, in fact, electronic currency becomes the norm, of one thing we can be sure. The emperors will devalue it, as needed. It will, ultimately, fail and, perhaps sooner, perhaps later, the world will return to the barbarous relic as it has done countless times for the last 5000 years. The only uncertainty will be when.

 

 

 

Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

 

 

 

 

 

Posted with permission and written by Jeff Thomas


ECB "Refused To Answer Questions" – “Systemic Threat” Of Deutsche Is “Not ECB Fault”

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/ecb-refused-answer-questions-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Csystemic-threat%E2%80%9D-deutsche-%E2%80%9Cnot-ecb-fault%E2%80%9D

The potential collapse of Deutsche Bank and the systemic risk it poses to banks and the European financial and monetary system moved into the German political sphere yesterday. The German government denied it was preparing a rescue of the embattled bank and the Bundestag attempted to ask questions of ECB President Mario Draghi about the causes of the "systemic risks" posed by the bank.

draghi_ECBRalph Orlowski | Reuters
ECB President Mario Draghi refused to answer questions in German parliament

The ECB president brazenly "refused to answer questions" regarding Deutsche Bank during a closed-door meeting in the German parliament. Afterwords in conversation with journalists, he denied that the negative interest rates being imposed by the ECB are partly responsible for Deutsche Bank and the German financial system’s troubles.

However, many analysts rightly assert that zero interest rate policies (ZIRP) and now negative interest rate policies (NIRP) are a factor and partly contributing to the challenges facing banks in much of the western world. Not to mention causing bubbles in many property markets and indeed in stock and bond markets.

Draghi_ECB_FTSource FT

“If a bank represents a systemic threat it cannot be because of low interest rates. It has to be for other reasons,” Mr Draghi asserted to reporters somewhat dogmatically and simplistically. He was contradicted by the head of Germany's BdB banking association, Michael Kemmer, who told Deutschlandfunk radio that the ECB's low interest rate policy was partly responsible for the current problems that Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank are facing.

This morning, Commerzbank, the second-biggest bank in Germany after Deutsche, suspended its dividend and revealed it is slashing more than 9,000 job losses as it too desperately tries to shore up its business in the face of ultra-low interest rates and increasing loan losses.

Anxiety over eurozone banks has risen since the market turmoil following the June UK vote to leave the EU. Until recently, however, concerns have focused on the bloc’s periphery, particularly banks in Italy.

Now the banking crisis is moving to the core. This poses the real risk of financial contagion in the European monetary system and the global banking system.

See “Euro Might Start To Unravel” If Collapse Of Deutsche Bank

Gold and Silver Bullion - News and Commentary

Gold extends losses as dollar, stocks rise (Reuters)

Gold prices mostly steady in Asia as rates, politics and OPEC mix (Investing)

WTO cuts 2016 world trade growth forecast to 1.7 percent, cites wake-up call (Reuters)

City-by-city look as house price gains slow (MarketWatch)

IMF sounds alarm bells over trade slowdown and low inflation (Telegraph)

7RealRisksBlogBanner

What the return of politics means for your money (MoneyWeek)

Dollar Going the Way of the Denarius (InternationalMan)

Transition of Price Discovery in the Global Gold and Silver Market (SafeHaven)

Will Deutsche Bank's Collapse Be Worse Than Lehman Brothers? (GoldEagle)

Deutsche Bank To Blow Up and Create Euro "Chaos"? (DollarCollapse)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

29 Sep: USD 1,320.85, GBP 1,016.92 & EUR 1,177.14 per ounce
28 Sep: USD 1,324.80, GBP 1,020.10 & EUR 1,181.06 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 1,335.85, GBP 1,031.01 & EUR 1,187.84 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 1,336.30, GBP 1,033.23 & EUR 1,188.91 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 1,335.90, GBP 1,027.17 & EUR 1,192.16 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 1,332.45, GBP 1,019.59 & EUR 1,186.68 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 1,319.60, GBP 1,015.96 & EUR 1,183.81 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

29 Sep: USD 19.01, GBP 14.61 & EUR 16.95 per ounce
28 Sep: USD 19.12, GBP 14.69 & EUR 17.05 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 19.42, GBP 14.99 & EUR 17.26 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 19.44, GBP 15.04 & EUR 17.29 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 19.82, GBP 15.28 & EUR 17.66 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 19.88, GBP 15.22 & EUR 17.69 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 19.43, GBP 14.95 & EUR 17.43 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

- Do You Really Own Your Gold?
- “Gold Will Likely Soar To A Record Within Five Years”
- Savings Guarantee? U.N. Warns Next Financial Crisis Imminent
- Gold Up 1.5%, Silver Surges 3% – Yellen Stays Ultra Loose At 0.25%
- Trump and Clinton Are “Positive For Gold” – $1,900/oz by End of Year
- Gold Bugs Rejoice – Central Banks Think You’re On To Something
- ‘Hard’ Brexit Looms For Ireland
- EU Bail In Rules Ignored By Italy – Mother Of All Systemic Threats and World War?
- Buy Gold – Bonds Are ‘Biggest Bubble In World’ – Billionaire Singer Warns
- Silver Bullion Market – “Most Bullish Story Ever Told?”
- “Sorry, You Can’t Have Your Gold Bullion”
- Global Stocks, Bonds Fall Sharply – Gold Consolidates After Two Weeks Of Gains
- Gold, Silver, Blockchain and Fintech – Solutions To Negative Rates, Bail-ins, Cash Confiscations and Cashless Society

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Euro “Might Start To Unravel” If Collapse Of Deutsche Bank

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-28/euro-%E2%80%9Cmight-start-unravel%E2%80%9D-if-collapse-deutsche-bank

The euro "might start to unravel" if Deutsche Bank collapses according to respected financial journalist Matthew Lynn. "It all has a very 2008 feel to it ..." he warns in the Telegraph where he outlines his growing concerns about Deutsche Bank, concerns we have written about in recent months. He writes:

Our image of German banks, and the German economy, as completely rock solid is so strong that it takes a lot to persuade us they might be in trouble.

 

And yet it has become increasingly hard to ignore the slow-motion car crash that is Deutsche Bank, or to avoid the conclusion that something very nasty is developing at what was once seen as Europe’s strongest financial institution. Its shares have been in free-fall for a year, touching a new low of 10.7 euros on Monday, down from 27 euros a year ago. Over the weekend, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel waded into the mess, briefing that there could be no government bail-out of the bank.

But hold on. Surely that is an extra-ordinary decision? If the German government does not stand behind the bank, then inevitably all its counter-parties – the other banks and institutions it deals with – are going to start feeling very nervous about trading with it. As we know from 2008, once confidence starts to evaporate, a bank is in big, big trouble. In fact, if Deutsche does go down, it is looking increasingly likely that it will take Merkel with it – and quite possibly the euro as well.

Merkel is playing a very dangerous game with Deutsche – and one that could easily go badly wrong. If her refusal to sanction a bail-out is responsible for a Deutsche collapse that could easily end her Chancellorship. But if she rescues it, the euro might start to unravel. It is hardly surprising that the markets are watching the relentless decline in its share price with mounting horror. 

GoldCore: Warren Buffett Quiote

We have warned about Deutsche Bank and its massive derivative book and potential insolvency for many months now - see
Fed's Annual Stress Tests: Deutsche Bank & Santander Fail 
CEOs of Deutsche Bank “Shown Door” – Trouble Brewing at World’s Largest Holder of Derivatives?

Gold and Silver Bullion - News and Commentary

Gold extends losses as dollar, stocks rise (Reuters)

Gold prices mostly steady in Asia as rates, politics and OPEC mix (Investing)

WTO cuts 2016 world trade growth forecast to 1.7 percent, cites wake-up call (Reuters)

City-by-city look as house price gains slow (MarketWatch)

IMF sounds alarm bells over trade slowdown and low inflation (Telegraph)

7RealRisksBlogBanner

What the return of politics means for your money (MoneyWeek)

Dollar Going the Way of the Denarius (InternationalMan)

Transition of Price Discovery in the Global Gold and Silver Market (SafeHaven)

Will Deutsche Bank's Collapse Be Worse Than Lehman Brothers? (GoldEagle)

Deutsche Bank To Blow Up and Create Euro "Chaos"? (DollarCollapse)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

28 Sep: USD 1,324.80, GBP 1,020.10 & EUR 1,181.06 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 1,335.85, GBP 1,031.01 & EUR 1,187.84 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 1,336.30, GBP 1,033.23 & EUR 1,188.91 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 1,335.90, GBP 1,027.17 & EUR 1,192.16 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 1,332.45, GBP 1,019.59 & EUR 1,186.68 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 1,319.60, GBP 1,015.96 & EUR 1,183.81 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 1,315.40, GBP 1,011.02 & EUR 1,175.84 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

28 Sep: USD 19.12, GBP 14.69 & EUR 17.05 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 19.42, GBP 14.99 & EUR 17.26 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 19.44, GBP 15.04 & EUR 17.29 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 19.82, GBP 15.28 & EUR 17.66 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 19.88, GBP 15.22 & EUR 17.69 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 19.43, GBP 14.95 & EUR 17.43 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 19.17, GBP 14.78 & EUR 17.15 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

- Do You Really Own Your Gold?
- “Gold Will Likely Soar To A Record Within Five Years”
- Savings Guarantee? U.N. Warns Next Financial Crisis Imminent
- Gold Up 1.5%, Silver Surges 3% – Yellen Stays Ultra Loose At 0.25%
- Trump and Clinton Are “Positive For Gold” – $1,900/oz by End of Year
- Gold Bugs Rejoice – Central Banks Think You’re On To Something
- ‘Hard’ Brexit Looms For Ireland
- EU Bail In Rules Ignored By Italy – Mother Of All Systemic Threats and World War?
- Buy Gold – Bonds Are ‘Biggest Bubble In World’ – Billionaire Singer Warns
- Silver Bullion Market – “Most Bullish Story Ever Told?”
- “Sorry, You Can’t Have Your Gold Bullion”
- Global Stocks, Bonds Fall Sharply – Gold Consolidates After Two Weeks Of Gains
- Gold, Silver, Blockchain and Fintech – Solutions To Negative Rates, Bail-ins, Cash Confiscations and Cashless Society

2017: Gold and Silver’s Year of “Public Recognition”

Published here: http://goldsilverworlds.com/gold-silver-price-news/2017-gold-silvers-year-public-recognition/

2017-public-recognitionIn all probability, December 2015 marked the bottom of the cyclical gold and silver bear market – a bear cycle that had been in play since silver topped in May 2011 and gold in September of the same year.

During the fourth quarter 2015, share price declines of the precious metals mining companies tapered off once the last of the weak hands gave up and sold their positions to stronger, forward-looking investors.

If you go to a free chart service like stockcharts.com, you can choose any number of mining stocks and look at their January 19 daily price action. On this date – for most of the top and second-tier companies – the last intraday price plunge took place. For purpose of example only, we have chosen Endeavour Silver.

Endeavour Silver Weekly Chart

Endeavour Silver Weekly Chart

Notice how the price made a new low, then moved up into the preceding day’s/week’s range to close on a strong note for the session. It’s likely this low print will not be touched again during the current bull run.

What Have Physical Gold and Silver Been Doing?

Silver has risen more than 40% so far this year; gold is up almost 20%. Dozens, if not scores, of mining stocks rose several times as much (as expected). In fact, Jim Flanagan, who keeps track of the size and duration of first leg bull market runs across many asset classes, had the following to say about this year’s multi-month mining stock rise:

“The 175% Advance in Gold Stocks in 5 Months, 22 Days Now Places Us As the 11th Greatest 1st Leg Up in Any Bull Market in Any of the Tangible Assets During the Past 150 Years. In Other Words, It Is the Elite of the Elite.”

A few resource sector newsletter writers got their subscribers onto “the right side of the trade” early this spring, but a number of others either jumped out too early at the first sign of a “correction” (of which there have been 6), or sat out the entire year, waiting for what they hoped would be a low-risk entry point.

Silver Prices (2011-2016)

Silver Prices (2011-2016)

The World’s Central Banks Are Buying Up Mining Stocks

While there was considerable institutional, individual, and hedge fund buying of both the miners and metals, an unexpected long side category of customer has recently emerged.

central-bank-official-net-gold-purchasesDeutsche Bank, Germany’s (and Europe’s) largest – otherwise in very poor financial shape – is said to be holding no less than 50 mining sector stocks, with a total market value of over $2 billion. The Swiss National Bank holds 25 stocks at a $1 billion market value. Now Norway’s Central Bank (Norges Bank) has filed notice with U.S. regulators that it too holds securities in 23 mining stocks to the tune of just under $1billion.

Isn’t it ironic that the very financial entities who have been instrumental in flooding the world with un-backed currencies are now buying mining stocks as insurance for their own financial holdings? (Not to mention that, since 2010, central banks have been net buyers of physical gold!)

Public Recognition Will Kick In above $26 Silver and $1,500 Gold…

In almost every major bull market, the public begins to arrive at the party after the first few innings have been played. This time around we can make a guesstimate as to what price levels are likely to “trigger” a wave (waves?) of physical metals’ buying by newly-informed, recently-committed members of the public.

Note on the weekly silver chart above, the $26 level when touched for the fourth time in 2013 broke down sharply, initiating a further two years of decline. A rule of charting is that broken support becomes resistance to a return move.

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that $26 will offer a major (initial) impediment to rising prices.

When the $26 level is decisively penetrated on the upside and a base built above it, prices have the potential to accelerate rapidly.

David Morgan and I are working on a book dealing with metals and the mining stocks, titled Second Chance: How to Make, and Keep Big Money During the Coming Gold and Silver Shock-Wave, due out early this fall.

In one chapter, we list in bullet form some of the “indicators” we believe will mark the way for greatly increased public sector precious metals involvement. They include:

  • Upside penetration by gold of horizontal resistance-becomes-support (HSR) levels in hundred dollar increments from $1,500 to and through $1,900.
  • Penetration of and successful base-building by gold (via retesting) above $2,000.
  • Upside penetration by silver of horizontal resistance-becomes-support (HSR) levels in five dollar increments from $25, to and through $45.
  • Penetration of and successful base-building (via retesting) above $50 silver.
  • The leading edge of the public mania wave starts building as these upside layers of resistance are successfully penetrated and turned into support. 2017 is most likely the year during which the public recognition phase gets underway.
  • New all-time nominal highs in gold (>$2,000) and silver (> $50) ushers in even more public involvement, leading to what we believe will be the final and most massive move for the precious metals and associated shares.

As these events are taking place, the effect on availability (as well as on expanding premiums) for physical gold and silver will be profound. As new nominal highs in both gold and silver are printed, several situations begin to develop.

  • Precious metals become more difficult to find as available supplies dry up.
  • More counterfeit bullion and “collector” coins and bars circulate in the market place.
  • The price, first of gold, then silver becomes elevated to the point that fewer people can afford to buy in quantity. The market rations supply and premiums expand sharply.

Late August into September ushered in an intermediate and much needed correction to the year’s blistering uptrend for the metals and miners. If you believe, as we do, that the new bull run for gold and silver has at least several more years to run, then going against your emotions and adding to your position – or starting a new one – is the right thing to do.

Adam Hamilton sums it up well when he demonstrates a key trait which separates those who do well as investors, from the rest, who just hope, plan, and watch. Says Adam:

“Buying low is never easy. When selloffs snowball to major levels, there’s always a chance they will cascade even lower. So it’s very challenging psychologically to fight the thundering herd and buy when everyone else is selling. It feels terrible buying into capitulation selloffs, almost nauseating. The only way to build the fortitude necessary to do it is to stay exceptionally informed, which helps frame selloffs in context.”

Even after you’ve done the research and decided to participate, buying into price weakness against the herd and contrary to your emotions is not an easy thing to do. But time and again, some of the world’s most successful investors have done just that. You might want to consider joining their ranks.

hhish-David_SmithDavid Smith is Senior Analyst for TheMorganReport.com and a regular contributor to MoneyMetals.com. For the past 15 years, he has investigated precious metals’ mines and exploration sites in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Bolivia, China, Canada, and the U.S. He shares his resource sector findings with readers, the media, and North American investment conference attendees.

The post 2017: Gold and Silver’s Year of “Public Recognition” appeared first on Gold Silver Worlds.

John Embry: The Fundamental Attraction of Gold

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-28/john-embry-fundamental-attraction-gold

 

 

 

 



 

For investors who are both just beginning their foray into gold investment, and for those who have been long time proponents of gold, Sprott Senior Advisor John Embry breaks down the recent history of the U.S., highlighting the pressures that have brought fiat currency to the brink, U.S. debt liabilities to staggering heights, and gold back to the institutional investor’s crosshairs. It’s a must-hear, dispassionate and highly instructional speech for anyone seeking to fully understand the state of the global economy and its implications for gold and silver, and why gold remains a cornerstone of a well-constructed portfolio today.


To quote Voltaire: “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero.”


The U.S. has provided the world’s reserve currency since Breton Woods. Though we did not lose the implicit gold backing until 1971, the pressure of the 1960s set the stage. As President LBJ tried to fund both his Great Society program and the Cold War era arms race and the Vietnam War, cash was flying out of U.S. coffers. In the process, an ever-greater amount of U.S. cash – gold-backed cash - was ending up in foreign hands. At the time, only central banks could redeem U.S. currency for gold, and they came forward with arms outstretched.
 

 

By 1970, the U.S. gold reserves were depleting at an alarming rate, causing Nixon to close off the vaults and unpeg the dollar. Few could imagine the financial engineering that was to follow.


After that came the reigns of Fed Chairmen Paul Volcker and later Alan Greenspan, who began to take enormous liberties with monetary policy, effectively addicting the financial markets to stimulus. Inflation remained muted, thanks in part to emerging China flooding the world with cheap goods, and therefore financial returns were spectacular. It has also corresponded with dramatic market dislocations.


The bond market bottomed in 1981. The stock market bottomed in 1982. The stock market crashed in 1987. The dot com bubble popped in 2001, followed by real estate – and essentially the global economy – in 2007 and 2008. And the central bank’s been there every step of the way, accommodating fresh paper money – monetary heroin -- to shore up markets at any sign of trouble.
And what has been the result?


In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in, federal debt was $960 billion, an amount accumulated over the better part of 200 years.


In 2007 and 2008, federal public debt was $10 trillion, a 10-fold increase in 26 years. This only led to greater stimulus via QE.


Eight years later and we find ourselves saddled with federal funded debt which has doubled again to $19 trillion. And this isn’t the whole picture: Off-balance sheet debt liabilities, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, at an estimated $5 to $6 trillion; unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, estimated between $60 trillion and $150 trillion; plus other liabilities, equals a range of about $85 trillion to $175 trillion.


Factor in that U.S. GDP is a mere $18 trillion, and we can see that our obligations are between 4x and 8x our productive capacity. And how long can this charade continue?

 

 


Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

 

 

 

 



The Federal Reserve Note “Dollar” Is Indeed Dying, but Not Next Week

Published here: http://goldsilverworlds.com/money-currency/federal-reserve-note-dollar-indeed-dying-not-next-week/

Some say the U.S. dollar may die 5 days hence. The Chinese renminbi will kill it. Much is being made of plans by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to add the renminbi to its basket of strategic reserve currencies called Special Drawing Rights (SDR). The IMF will make the change on October 1. While the implications for the Federal Reserve Note, currently the U.S. dollar, as the world’s primary reserve currency may be profound over time and the importance of this event should not be overlooked, the impact is unlikely to happen overnight.

The composition of the SDR may change on October 1, but few people understand what the SDR is. Even fewer actually have any experience trading it. For the many who wonder what an SDR is, here is a brief description from the IMF;

The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement its member countries’ official reserves. As of March 2016, 204.1 billion SDRs (equivalent to about $285 billion) had been created and allocated to members. SDRs can be exchanged for freely usable currencies. The value of the SDR is currently based on a basket of four major currencies: the U.S. dollar, euro, the Japanese yen, and pound sterling. The basket will be expanded to include the Chinese renminbi (RMB) as the fifth currency, effective October 1, 2016.

The IMF actually decided to make October 1st’s changes to the SDR one year ago. Some expected that decision would represent the death knell for the dollar. But when the announcement came, the currency markets hardly noticed.

Mass psychology – or relative confidence – is what ultimately determines whether or not a dollar holds value. Not much will happen October 1st if not many people care.

imfThere have been many other threats to the confidence that underpins the dollar. Among them were straight-forward and widely publicized assaults; trillion dollar federal deficits, metastasizing debt and an explosion in the supply of U.S. dollars. If years of Quantitative Easing – the Fed’s program to gin up trillions in new dollars with which to buy Treasury Bonds and garbage mortgage securities – didn’t torpedo confidence, a far more obscure institution like the IMF may not do it either when it changes the composition of their arcane supranational currency.

That said, October 1st could mark an important waypoint on the long road to oblivion for the U.S. dollar. The Chinese have been openly advocating for SDRs to replace the dollar as world reserves, and this event is an important step down that road.

In 2009 Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China’s central bank, called for the creation of “an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run.” There are many nations who consider the reign of “king dollar” tyrannical.

The IMF has big plans for the SDR. There will soon be an offering of SDR denominated bonds. IMF officials hope to see large and liquid foreign exchange and bond markets modeled after those where dollars and Treasuries are traded. If they succeed, it is easy to imagine developments such as oil exporters demanding payment in SDRs and central banks swapping their vast reserves of Federal Reserve Note. In other words, the IMF intends for the SDR to replace the Federal Reserve Note as the world’s reserve currency.

However, that outcome is by no means certain. The SDR is nothing more than a basket full of flawed fiat currencies. Like the Federal Reserve Note, the others are backed by the full faith and credit of irresponsible governments who would be insolvent but for their printing presses. This includes China’s renminbi.

We fully expect the U.S. dollar will be dethroned one day, and the SDR may be part of that transition. But nothing will solve these growing problems until gold and silver are restored to broad use as money. The world needs honest money, not a basket of paper.

Clint Siegner MMEClint Siegner is a Director at Money Metals Exchange, the national precious metals company named 2015 “Dealer of the Year” in the United States by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of Linfield College in Oregon, Siegner puts his experience in business management along with his passion for personal liberty, limited government, and honest money into the development of Money Metals’ brand and reach. This includes writing extensively on the bullion markets and their intersection with policy and world affairs.

The post The Federal Reserve Note “Dollar” Is Indeed Dying, but Not Next Week appeared first on Gold Silver Worlds.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Do You Really Own Your Gold?

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-27/do-you-really-own-your-gold

Do You Really Own Your Gold?
by Ted Bauman, 
Editor, The Bauman Letter

What does it mean to “own” something? It’s a question you should be asking … especially if that something is gold.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ownership as “the act, state, or right of possessing something.” That sounds about right. But what does it mean to “possess” something?

Gold Investment Pyramid - GoldCore
Gold Investment Pyramid - GoldCore

After all, you can own something that’s in someone else’s legal possession. For example, I own a house in Cape Town. My tenants have formal right of possession under a lease. I sleep at night because the sheriff of the Simon’s Town Magistrates’ Court will enforce my superior right of possession under South African law if needed — say, if they stop paying rent.

In other words, the “state or right of possessing something” that isn’t under your physical control depends on contracts and on law. That in turn depends on the ability and willingness of those who honor contracts — and enforce laws — to do so.

If you “own” precious metals under certain types of arrangements, you may be shocked to find that you’re in a legal limbo where ownership and possession are hazy at best.

It’s not a place you want to be.

Deutsche Bank Unter Alles

German mega bank Deutsche Bank is in serious trouble. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has publicly called it one of the greatest threats to the global financial system. The Russian government (no doubt crying crocodile tears) is investigating its role in rampant money laundering. And the U.S. government has just announced a fine related to its behavior before the 2008 crisis that is more than the bank’s current market valuation.

Over the last few years, Deutsche Bank has been the principal banker and repository for a popular exchange-traded commodity fund (ETC) called Xetra-Gold. As you know, we here at the Sovereign Investor Daily don’t like metals ETFs and ETCs because you don’t really own any gold — just a claim on gold.

Xetra-Gold, however, differentiates itself from other ETCs by stating in its investor contract that “every gram of gold purchased electronically is backed by the same amount of physical gold” stored in the Frankfurt vaults of Clearstream Banking AG, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Börse AG, one of Deutsche Bank’s subsidiaries.

Xetra explicitly says that every time an investor buys shares, a corresponding amount of gold is purchased and put into the vault, so that “investors always have the possibility of demanding delivery of the securitized amount of gold per bearer note.” Because of this promise, Xetra is extremely popular. During the first seven months of this year, order book turnover on Xetra stood at approximately €1.5 billion. The assets managed by Xetra currently amount to €3.5 billion.

But recently, an Xetra investor encountered a big surprise. When he went to arrange for delivery of physical gold, a Deutsche Bank account executive informed him that physical delivery “is no longer offered for reasons of business policy.”

Oops.

Dude, Where’s my Gold?

People piled into Xetra because it promised the small spreads and low fees of an ETC and the promise of quick physical delivery of gold on demand. Usually you get one or the other, but not both. It seemed too good to be true. It was.

As things stand, Xetra is a paper-only ETC. If you want to turn your shares into gold, you have to sell them to a willing buyer and use the proceeds to buy gold somewhere else. That’s not what Xetra promised at all.

What about those promises of full gold backing? Nobody is quite sure how Xetra and Deutsche Bank are justifying their failure to deliver gold, but the likely culprit is a clause in investor contracts that allows Xetra to modify its terms as the need arises. Many contracts include such boilerplate, and many people ignore it precisely because it is boilerplate.

The problem is that any contract that allows one party to alter the terms at will means that the other party has no real rights of ownership. In this case, Xetra investors don’t have gold in their possession, but neither do they have an enforceable right to convert their shares into the metal.

Possession Is 9/10 of the Law

The speculation about Xetra is predictable. Deutsche Bank has probably raided its gold holdings in its scramble to remain solvent. And there’s nothing any Xetra investor can do about it, since they never really owned any gold in the first place — just a piece of paper.

If you want the protection that ownership of real gold bullion provides, you need to own it yourself and store it in your own name. You may pay a bit more in spreads and fees, but if you’re owning gold as a hedge against financial calamity, that shouldn’t matter.

The upside of avoiding massive loss far outweighs the extra cost of being a real owner of gold … not of a worthless piece of paper.

Full article here

Gold and Silver Bullion - News and Commentary

Deutsche Bank shares fall to lowest level since mid-1980s (TheGuardian)

Gold slips as equities, dollar gain after US presidential debate (Reuters)

India Growing 8% a Year Seen by Citi Helping Oil, Gold Demand (Bloomberg)

Gold Volatility Sags to 2-Year Low as Traders Assess Fed Outlook (Bloomberg)

Gold logs a gain as focus turns to U.S. presidential debate (MarketWatch)

Video: Deutsche Bank at "tipping point", Verge of outright panic? (Bloomberg)

Germany Will Rescue Deutsche Bank If Necessary, Allianz Says (Bloomberg)

The rise of the creative classes (DavidMCWilliams)

Options expiration is prime time for monetary metals suppression - Turk (Qata)

Don’t let financial repression crush you and your investments (MoneyWeek)

7RealRisksBlogBanner

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

27 Sep: USD 1,335.85, GBP 1,031.01 & EUR 1,187.84 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 1,336.30, GBP 1,033.23 & EUR 1,188.91 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 1,335.90, GBP 1,027.17 & EUR 1,192.16 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 1,332.45, GBP 1,019.59 & EUR 1,186.68 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 1,319.60, GBP 1,015.96 & EUR 1,183.81 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 1,315.40, GBP 1,011.02 & EUR 1,175.84 per ounce
19 Sep: USD 1,315.05, GBP 1,007.99 & EUR 1,177.36 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

27 Sep: USD 19.42, GBP 14.99 & EUR 17.26 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 19.44, GBP 15.04 & EUR 17.29 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 19.82, GBP 15.28 & EUR 17.66 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 19.88, GBP 15.22 & EUR 17.69 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 19.43, GBP 14.95 & EUR 17.43 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 19.17, GBP 14.78 & EUR 17.15 per ounce
19 Sep: USD 19.12, GBP 14.65 & EUR 17.13 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

- “Gold Will Likely Soar To A Record Within Five Years”
- Savings Guarantee? U.N. Warns Next Financial Crisis Imminent
- Gold Up 1.5%, Silver Surges 3% – Yellen Stays Ultra Loose At 0.25%
- Trump and Clinton Are “Positive For Gold” – $1,900/oz by End of Year
- Gold Bugs Rejoice – Central Banks Think You’re On To Something
- ‘Hard’ Brexit Looms For Ireland
- EU Bail In Rules Ignored By Italy – Mother Of All Systemic Threats and World War?
- Buy Gold – Bonds Are ‘Biggest Bubble In World’ – Billionaire Singer Warns
- Silver Bullion Market – “Most Bullish Story Ever Told?”
- “Sorry, You Can’t Have Your Gold Bullion”
- Global Stocks, Bonds Fall Sharply – Gold Consolidates After Two Weeks Of Gains
- Gold, Silver, Blockchain and Fintech – Solutions To Negative Rates, Bail-ins, Cash Confiscations and Cashless Society
- Jan Skoyles Appointed Research Executive At GoldCore

Monday, September 26, 2016

“Gold Will Likely Soar To A Record Within Five Years"

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-26/%E2%80%9Cgold-will-likely-soar-record-within-five-years

"Gold will likely soar to a record within five years as asset bubbles burst in everything from bonds to credit and equities, forcing investors to find a haven", reported Bloomberg last week, quoting Old Mutual Global Investors’ Diego Parrilla.

gold_bull_market

The metal is at the start of a multi-year bull run with a “few thousand dollars of upside” in a world of “monetary policy without limits” where central banks print lots of money and low or negative interest rates prevail, said Parrilla, who joined the firm as managing director of commodities last month. He’s worked at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

“As some of the excesses in other asset classes get unwound, gold will perform very strongly,” said 43-year-old Parrilla, who has almost 20 years experience in precious-metals markets. The “perfect storm scenario will mean that gold will perform best when other classes are doing worst.”

While gold has climbed 24 percent this year amid low or negative rates, it slumped more than 40 percent from its record in 2011 through the end of last year to what Parrilla called “very oversold, very distressed” levels. With the downside only a few hundred dollars, the risk-to-reward ratio is extremely asymmetric and skewed to the upside, he said in an interview on Sept. 14.

In the first of two monetary-policy announcements on Wednesday, the Bank of Japan shifted the focus of stimulus from expanding the money supply to controlling interest rates, which some economists deemed as further evidence that BOJ policy had reached the limits of its effectiveness. The Federal Reserve is also due to make a policy decision, with traders seeing the probability for an interest-rate hike at only 22 percent.

Gross, Singer
Parrilla joins a slew of investors who are bullish on gold because of low borrowing costs and central-bank bond buying. Billionaire bond-fund manager Bill Gross has said there’s little choice but gold and real estate given current bond yields, while Paul Singer, David Einhorn and Stan Druckenmiller have all expressed reasons this year for owning the metal.

 

Gold and Silver Bullion - News and Commentary

Gold ends lower, but books best weekly gain since July (MarketWatch)

Gold steady as dollar falls vs yen; U.S. politics in focus (Reuters)

Citi Warns Gold May Be Volatile as Bank Boosts Odds of Trump Win to 40% (Bloomberg)

Erdogan sees ‘ulterior motives’ in U.S. case against gold trader (Reuters)

Manufacturing PMI in September slips to three-month lowh (MarketWatch)

7RealRisksBlogBanner

Gold and Silver Gain About 2% and 5% on the Week (Goldseek)

Gold Outperforms With U.S. Rates on Hold (Bloomberg)

Fed seeks sharp limit on Wall Street commodity holdings (Bloomberg)

Monetary metals manipulation lawsuits hanging by a thread (ComexWeHaveProblem)

China's alarming debt pile (MoneyWeek)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

26 Sep: USD 1,336.30, GBP 1,033.23 & EUR 1,188.91 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 1,335.90, GBP 1,027.17 & EUR 1,192.16 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 1,332.45, GBP 1,019.59 & EUR 1,186.68 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 1,319.60, GBP 1,015.96 & EUR 1,183.81 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 1,315.40, GBP 1,011.02 & EUR 1,175.84 per ounce
19 Sep: USD 1,315.05, GBP 1,007.99 & EUR 1,177.36 per ounce
16 Sep: USD 1,314.25, GBP 995.68 & EUR 1,170.08 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

26 Sep: USD 19.44, GBP 15.04 & EUR 17.29 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 19.82, GBP 15.28 & EUR 17.66 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 19.88, GBP 15.22 & EUR 17.69 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 19.43, GBP 14.95 & EUR 17.43 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 19.17, GBP 14.78 & EUR 17.15 per ounce
19 Sep: USD 19.12, GBP 14.65 & EUR 17.13 per ounce
16 Sep: USD 18.91, GBP 14.36 & EUR 16.85 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

- Savings Guarantee? U.N. Warns Next Financial Crisis Imminent
- Gold Up 1.5%, Silver Surges 3% – Yellen Stays Ultra Loose At 0.25%
- Trump and Clinton Are “Positive For Gold” – $1,900/oz by End of Year
- Gold Bugs Rejoice – Central Banks Think You’re On To Something
- ‘Hard’ Brexit Looms For Ireland
- EU Bail In Rules Ignored By Italy – Mother Of All Systemic Threats and World War?
- Buy Gold – Bonds Are ‘Biggest Bubble In World’ – Billionaire Singer Warns
- Silver Bullion Market – “Most Bullish Story Ever Told?”
- “Sorry, You Can’t Have Your Gold Bullion”
- Global Stocks, Bonds Fall Sharply – Gold Consolidates After Two Weeks Of Gains
- Gold, Silver, Blockchain and Fintech – Solutions To Negative Rates, Bail-ins, Cash Confiscations and Cashless Society
- Jan Skoyles Appointed Research Executive At GoldCore
- Silver Bullion Surges 3.5% To Over $20/oz

Blood Brothers: The Bank of England and the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)

Published here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-26/blood-brothers-bank-england-and-london-bullion-market-association-lbma

by Ronan Manly, BullionStar.com

The London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) is a London-based, globally active, trade association for “the promotion and regulation of commerce relating to the London Bullion Market”. The “London Bullion Market” here collectively refers to the London Gold Market and the London Silver Market. The remit of the LBMA has very recently also been extended to cover the London Platinum and Palladium Market (LPPM).

While it is generally known to many, vaguely or otherwise, that the Bank of England has a vested ‘interest’ in the London gold market, the consistently close relationship between the Bank of England and the LBMA tends not to be fully appreciated. This close and familial relationship even extends to the very recent appointment of a very recently departed Bank of England senior staff member, and former head of the Bank of England Foreign exchange Division, Paul Fisher, as the new ‘independent‘ chairman of the LBMA Management Committee (a committee which has recently been rechristened as a ‘Board’). Note that at the Bank of England, the Bank’s gold trading activities fall under the remit of the ‘Foreign Exchange’ area, so should be more correctly called Bank of England Foreign Exchange and Gold Division. For example, a former holder of this position in the 1980s, Terry Smeeton, had a title of Head of Foreign Exchange and Gold at the Bank of England.

What is also unappreciated is that the same Paul Fisher has in the past, been the Bank of England’s representative, with observer status, on this very same LBMA Management Committee that he is now becoming independent chairman of. This is an ‘elephant in the room’ if ever there was one, which the mainstream financial media in London conveniently chooses to ignore.

As you will see below, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also has a close, and again, very low-key but embedded relationship with this LBMA Management Committee.

Mark Carney, Bank of England Governor, with Paul Fisher, LBMA Chairmand an former Bank of England senior staffer

At the ‘Behest’ of the Bank of England

The LBMA states in one of its Alchemist magazine articles, that its Association “was established at the behest of the Bank of England” in 1987, with Robert Guy of N.M. Rothschild, the then chairman of the London Gold Fixing, spearheading the coordination of the Association’s formation. Elsewhere, in a recent summary brochure of its activities, the LBMA states that it was “set up in 1987 by the Bank of England, which was at the time the bullion market’s regulator”, while a recently added historical timeline on the LBMA website, under the year 1987, states “LBMA established by the Bank of England as an umbrella association for the London Bullion Market.”

Established at the behest of“, “set up by” or “established by“, take your pick, but they all clearly mean the same thing; that the Bank of England was the guiding hand behind the LBMA’s formation.

Prior to the formation of the LBMA, and before a change of regulatory focus in 1986, the London Gold Market and London Silver Market had primarily followed a model of self-regulation, but the Bank of England had always been heavily involved in the market’s supervision and operations, especially in the Gold Market. Even reading a random sample of the Bank of England’s archive catalogue material will make it patently clear how close the Bank of England has always been to the commercial London Gold Market. For scores of years, the London Gold Market to a large extent merely constituted the Bank of England and the five member firms of the London gold fixing,  namely NM Rothschild, Mocatta & Goldsmid, Sharps Pixley, Samuel Montagu, and Johnson Matthey.

According to the 1993 book, “The International Gold Trade” by Tony Warwick-Ching, a combination of the advent of the Financial Services Act of 1986 which introduced supervisory changes to the UK’s markets, and the growing power of other bullion banks and brokers in the London precious metals market in the 1980s, acted as a combined impetus for the LBMA’s formation in 1987.

As Warwick-Ching stated:

“The LBMA was partly a response to a growing demand of concerns who were not members of the [gold] fixing for a greater involvement at the heart of the bullion market.” 

Morgan and J.Aron join the Party

Specifically, according to its Memorandum of Association, the LBMA was formed into a Company on 24 November 1987by N.M. Rothschild & Sons Limited, J.Aron & Company (UK) Limited, Mocatta & Goldsmid Limited, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Sharps Pixley Limited, and Rudolf Wolff & Company Limited. This company is “a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital”. Given their participation from the outset, presumably J Aron (now part of Goldman Sachs) and Morgan Guaranty (now part of JP Morgan Chase) were members of the ‘growing demand of concern‘ contingent alluded to by Warwick-Ching, who wanted a bigger say in the gold market’s inner sanctum.

Signatories to the original LBMA Memorandum of Association

The authorising subscribers of the original Memorandum, on behalf of their respective companies were, Robert Guy (Rothschild), Neil Newitt (J. Aron), Keith Smith (Mocatta & Goldsmid), Guy Field (Morgan Guaranty Trust), Les Edgar (Sharps Pixley), and John Wolff (Rudolf Wolff & Company), and they requested that “We, the subscribers to the Memorandum of Association, wish to be formed into a company pursuant to this Memorandum.” The original steering committee of the LBMA comprised five of the above, Robert Guy (Chairman), Guy Field (Vice Chairman), Keith Smith, John Wolff, Neil Newitt, as well as Jack Spall of Sharps Pixley, the father of Jonathan Spall (current consultant to the LBMA). Note that the incorporation filing at UK Companies House for the LBMA is dated 14 December 1987, about 3 weeks after the date listed on the original Memorandum of Association.

As early as April 1988, there were 13 “Market Maker” members and 48 ‘Ordinary’ members in the LBMA. The market maker members had to be ‘listed money market institutions’, which meant that they were institutions listed under section 43 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (on a list actually maintained by the Bank of England) who conducted  various transactions, including bullion market transactions, which were exempt from authorisation.

The Shadowy Observers: Bank of England

According to the LBMA website:

“The Bank of England has been intrinsically linked with the London bullion market since its foundation in 1694.” 

“Although the Bank isn’t a member of the LBMA, members of the LBMA hold gold custody accounts with the Bank”

“The Bank’s vaults hold approximately two-thirds of all the gold held in London vaults and as such plays a significant role in the liquidity within the London gold market. Customers are able to buy or sell gold to other customers, by making or receiving book entry transfers, with ownership transferred in the Bank’s back office system… The service provides a very important element of the gold market infrastructure in London, helping LBMA members and central banks to trade in a secure and efficient way.”

A Bank of England presentation to the 2013 LBMA conference in Rome, titled the-bank-of-englands-gold-vault-operations, gives a good overview of the Bank’s provision of book entry transfers to its central bank and bullion bank clients for the smooth running of the London Gold Lending Market, a market which is totally opaque and completely undocumented. In fact the Bank of England sits at the heart of this gold lending market.

Furthermore, on the clearing side:

“The London bullion clearing members role involves a considerable degree of direct client contact, electronic interfaces between the clearing members and close liaison with the Bank of England…”

From its very foundation in late 1987, the Bank of England was involved in the first steering committee of the LBMA and the activities of the Association. And to this day, Bank of England ‘observers’ attend LBMA Management Committee monthly meetings.

As a historical account of the LBMA’s 1987 formation states:

“From the Steering Committee’s inception, The Bank of England, which held responsibility for the supervision of the wholesale bullion market, was involved in the Association’s affairs and assisted in the drafting of the relevant Code of Conduct. Observers continue to attend Management Committee Meetings to the present day.”

This steering committee ultimately became the LBMA Management Committee, and, in the last few months, has become the LBMA ‘Board’. So the Bank of England is, for all intents and purposes, a highly active partner within the LBMA’s governance structure. As a confirmation of this point, at the LBMA annual general meeting in July 2014, the then chairman of the LBMA Management Committee chairman, David Gornall, of Natixis stated in his speech that:

“The LBMA is also privileged in having an observer from the Bank of England on the Management Committee. The Bank’s presence is of inestimable benefit to us.”

As to what inestimable benefit David Gornall was referring to, or in what way a Bank of England observer participates on the LBMA Management Committee, was not elaborated on. Nor can it be gleaned from any meeting minutes from LBMA Management Committee meetings, because such minutes are not made publicly available (See below).

For anyone not familiar with the concept of an observer on a corporate committee or board, it does not refer to someone who just sits there and observes, as the name may suggest. An observer refers to an attendee at the committee / board meetings who actively participates in discussions but who has no voting rights on committee / board resolutions. Observers can and do fully participate in meeting apart from voting. When voting occurs, they may (or may not) be asked to leave the room.

At the LBMA annual general meeting in June 2013, David Gornall, also chairman of the LBMA Management Committee at that time, revealed that not only was there a Bank of England observer on the Management committee, but there was also an observer from the UK financial regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), on the same committee:

“The LBMA is also privileged in having observers from both the Bank of England and the FCA on the Management Committee. Their presence is of inestimable benefit to us.”

In fact, there are many such references within various LBMA related speeches. At the LBMA Precious Metals Conference in September 2013, Matthew Hunt of the Bank of England stated:

“More specifically on gold, even though we are not active traders in the market but we are a large custodian, some of the people in our team responsible for gold observation sit on the LBMA Management Committee and theLBMA Physical Committee as observers. Thus we retain a significant engagement with the gold market via that route.” 

Notably the Bank of England has a team of people responsible for gold observation, but not for the observation of other commodities such as zinc, lean hogs, live cattle, heating oil, soybeans, sugar, beaver pelts etc etc.

In March 2013, Luke Thorn of the Bank of England, while addressing a LBMA Assaying and Refining Seminar, stated:

“We are not a member of the LBMA, but we continue to play a key role in the London market. We have observer status on the Management, Physical and Vault Committees.” 

There are therefore Bank of England observers on 3 LBMA Committees. So, who are these Bank of England and FCA observer representatives? That is not an easy question to answer. There is no mention on the LBMA website’s committee page, and has never been any mention, of any Bank of England observers or FCA observers on the LBMA Management Committee (now Board). Nor are there any published minutes on the LBMA website of any LBMA Management Committee meetings, or the meetings of any of the other five LBMA sub-committees, such meeting minutes as would generally list the attendees of such meetings. More about the lack of minutes below.

Turning briefly to the physical and vault committees, the LBMA website has a listing for its physical committee and does mention that a Bank of England observer called Jennifer Ashton currently is on this committee.

According to the LBMA’s good delivery summary:

“The Physical Committee is made up of industry experts from the physical bullion market. It is responsible for monitoring, developing and protecting the Good Delivery List and works closely with sub-Groups such as the LBMA Referees and the LBMA’s Vault Managers Working Party

There is however, no formal listing of the Vault Manager ‘s group as a LBMA committee within the LBMA’s committee listings section. The only informative reference to such a committee on the LBMA web site is in the good delivery rules explained section, which states:

 “The Vault Managers Working Groupcomprising the Bank of England and representatives from those LBMA members with their own vaulting facilities in London, meet regularly to consider issues relating to bar quality and vault procedures. Vault Managers are required to document every case of bar rejection and provide the associated information to the LBMA Executive”

Who is on this committee from the Bank of England, let alone from any of the other committee member companies is not disclosed.

Turning again to the identities of LBMA Management Committee observers, and going back slightly further to the LBMA Annual General Meeting on 20 June 2012, the Chairman, the omnipresent David Gornall of Natixis London Branch, stated:

“Talking of the Management Committee, let me remind you that we are very fortunate to have observers from both the Bank of England and the FSA on the committee. I would like to thank Trevor Stone and Don Groves for their participation in our affairs”.

From a speech at the 2009 LBMA annual conference by Michael Cross, the then Head of Foreign Exchange at the Bank of England, we learn that the Bank of England’s Banking Services area:

“is where Trevor Stone and his colleagues, who will also be known to many of you, work. The Banking Services area provides wholesale banking and custody services to a wide range of bank customers”

These ‘Banking Services’ functions at the Bank of England are similar to Central Bank and International Account Services (CBIAS) services offered to central bank customers by the New York Fed, and include gold custody services.

The Embedded Observers – FCA, Don Groves

On 30 September 2013, the ever-present David Gornall in another speech, this time to the LBMA annual conference in Rome, had this to say:

“We are grateful for the communication and feedback on our work from regulators, particularly that of own regulator the FCA. We are delighted to be joined by Don Groves of the FCA during tomorrow’s financial market regulation session. Don is a long-time observer on the LBMA Management Committee and we thank him for his participation and continued dialogue on our regulatory questions facing the London Market.”

The next day, on 1 October 2013, at the same conference, Ruth Crowell, the then Deputy CEO of the LBMA (and current LBMA CEO) introduced Don Groves as follows:

“With that, I am going to turn it over to Don Groves from the Financial Conduct Authority. Don is a technical specialist in the market contact area of the FCA’s Market Monitoring Department, where he is responsible for reviewing allegations of market misconduct, including market abuse and insider dealing.

Don specialises in the UK commodity markets and has been in market conduct for a number of years. We are also very privileged to have Don as an observer on the LBMA’s Management Committee.

Groves joined the FCA in 1999, and left the FCA in March 2015. While his LinkedIn profile has very detailed listings of his duties while at the FCA, there is no reference to the fact that he ever sat on the LBMA Management Committee, which strikes me as odd, unless that is a deliberate omission.  A previous version of Groves’ LinkedIn profile states:

I am considered to be an expert in Market Conduct matters and market abuse in the UK. I conduct project work pertaining to market conduct issues, contribute to the drafting of European legislation pertaining to market abuse and am an experienced public speaker. My main area of interest is the UK’s commodities markets.

Is it not odd that a FCA regulator was a long-time observer sitting on the LBMA Management Committee, but that the FCA has never had anything to say about the London Gold Market. Perhaps it’s because of the following, which gives the impression of a compliant and embedded regulator. As the FT wrote in October 2013 in an article titled “Gold and oil benchmarks face tighter regulation“:

“I don‘t want to give the impression that the UK is picking on the bullion market or anything else,” Mr Groves told the London Bullion Market Association precious metals conference in Rome. “But a consumer focus is what politicians are looking at…so there’s going to be more focus from us as regulators, on consumer issues.”

“However, [Groves] admitted the regulator did not know enough about physical markets and had launched a project to increase its knowledge. “We are going out as the FCA and learning about those markets,” he said.

What exactly the FCA was doing sitting on the LBMA Management Committee remains unclear, because, to reiterate, there are no publicly available minutes of the Committee’s meetings. At a guess, perhaps Groves was “learning about physical markets“, specifically the physical gold market.

Its also relevant to note that the Bank of England and FCA both crop up as observers when the LBMA holds various seminars, such as the seminar it held in the City of London on 24 October 2014 to showcase various solution providers that were competing to provide the infrastructure for the LBMA Gold Price fixing auction competition that was running at that time:

According to the LBMA press release, “Both the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority attended the seminar as observers.

Where are the LBMA Mgt Committee Meeting Minutes?

Through the Non-Investment Products Code (NIPs), the Bank of England interfaces closely with the UK’s foreign exchange, money and bullion markets. The Bank of England explains NIPs as follows:

“The Non-Investment Products Code

This Code has been drawn up by market practitioners in the United Kingdom representing principals and brokers in the foreign exchange, money and bullion markets to underpin the professionalism and high standards of these markets.[1]

It applies to trading in the wholesale markets in Non-Investment Products (NIPs), specifically the sterling, foreign exchange and bullion wholesale deposit markets, and the spot and forward foreign exchange and bullion markets.”

Footnote [1]Co-ordinated by the Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee, the Sterling Money Markets Liaison Group and the Management Committee of the London Bullion Market Association

Of the three, the  Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee is chaired and administered by the Bank of England. The Sterling Money Markets Liaison Group (now known as the Sterling Money Markets Liaison Committee) is also chaired and administered by the Bank of England.

On the Bank of England’s web site, there are very extensive informational resources about the Foreign exchange Joint Standing Committee and the Sterling Money Markets Liaison Committee, but surprise, surprise, there is nothing about the LBMA Management Committee. The Bank of England website offers publicly accessible documents of all meeting minutes of the FX Joint Standing Committee, including the representatives names of attendees and the banks and institutions represented at each meeting. These meeting minutes are highly detailed. See May 2016 FX Joint Standing Committee minutes as an example. Likewise, for the Sterling Money Markets Liaison Committee, the minutes of every meeting have been uploaded to the Bank of England website and are publicly accessible. These minutes are highly detailed. See for example the February 2016 Sterling Money Markets Liaison Committee meeting minutes.

However, the only tiny piece of information offered about the LBMA on the Bank of England website is as follows:

“The Bullion element of the NIPs Code is being replaced by a new code which will be established by the London Bullion Markets Association (LBMA). Further information on the bullion code can be found on the LMBA website.” 

Conveniently, the Bank of England passes the buck back to a web site (LBMA’s website) which is notoriously bereft of any information about the meetings of the LBMA Management Committee, the agendas of such meetings, the minutes of such meetings, and the attendees at these meetings. Why is this opacity allowed by the FCA and Bank of England when the foreign exchange and money market brethren have to submit to published minutes of their meetings, which in many cases involve the same banks and institutions? Could it be that discussion of the London Gold Market is highly secretive and a no-go area, and that the institutions involved have a free pass from the Bank of England and FCA to continue their discussions in private, away from the public eye?

 

Pièce de Résistance

Arguably, the pièce de résistance of these Bank of England / FCA relationships with the LBMA Management Committee, is the fact that Paul Fisher, the newly appointed ‘independent‘ Chairman of the LBMA Board, formerly known as the LBMA Management Committee, has already previously been the Bank of England’s “observer” on the LBMA Management Committee.

In his speech to the 2004 LBMA Annual Conference in Shanghai, Fisher, the then Head of Foreign Exchange at the Bank of England, while discussing the “Non-Investment Products Code”, a code which regulates the bullion market, the foreign exchange market, and the wholesale money market, stated that:

“In the bullion section, the work is led by the LBMA and the whole is coordinated by the Bank of England. Partly on that basis, I am glad to be invited to the LBMA’s Management Committee meetings as an observer. I’d just like to pay tribute to the professionalism and integrity with which I see the Management Committee operating for the best interests of the global marketplace for bullion.”

One of the more bizarre parts of Fisher’s appointment, in my view,  is that when the LBMA announced in a press release last July (2016) that Fisher was being appointed as the new LBMA chairman, there was no mention of the fact that he had previously attended the LBMA Management Committee meetings. One would think that this would be a very relevant when considering the ‘independence’ of the appointment?

On hearing the news on 13 July about the appointment of the Bank of England’s Paul Fisher as ‘independent’ non-executive chairman of the LBMA Board, James G Rickards, the well-known gold author and commentator, tweeted the below, which succinctly sums up the elephant in the room, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore.

This appointment reinforces the link, or bridge, between the two entities, which is now even more set in stone than previously. It’s as if the Bank of England, at this time, has felt the need to put it’s man directly at the head of the LBMA. The timing may be relevant, but in what way is not yet clear.

A forthcoming article looks at this appointment of a former Bank of England Head of Foreign Exchange as the new ‘independent’ Non-Executive Chairman of the LBMA Board, considers what, if anything, is independent about the appointment given the extremely close relationship between the Bank of England and the LBMA, and examines the appointment in the context of the UK Corporate Governance Code, which now governs the Constitution and operation of the LBMA Board.

Original Article appeared on BullionStar's website: 

Blood Brothers: The Bank of England and the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)