That's 3 times the undoing of yesterdays US Mint sales. And it's nothing compared to what happened last week, where they sold 2,62 million Ounces Of Gold. That's 40 times yesterdays US Mint sales. Just to say, US Mint Sales are much touted about, especially when they are high. But much bigger sales, from the demand side, we don't read.
This is the Reverse Side. US Mint > dealers to customers. IShares Gold Trust > customers to dealers. Guess which one delivers upwards price pressure. Guess which one delivers downwards price pressure. Wow?
you mean the authorised participants bought some shares to keep the etf in line with the spot price and withdrew some gold from the etf itself? someone still had to buy it, in this case the bullion banks that set the market for the etf.
It's those that run the ETF vehicle that buy/sell gold from/to the market, that keep the ETF in line with ("track") the spot price. Do you know on which basis a price drops? By supply exceeding demand. Bullion banks are supply. It's not that 'someone' bought that matters. But who. It's at which price that 'someone' was willing to buy, and the price drop makes clear that 'someone' didn't agree with the older, higher price. So, touting that the US Mint sells X ounces of Gold to the demand side, but being silent about someone that in the same time span sold 3X ounces of Gold back to the supply side, is telling just a part of the story. Selectivity, a filter on the real world.
Direct and indirect data indicates that ETF's hold the silver they claim to hold. They provide serial number lists of the bars. And be sure that these are nitpicked on every halfweird number, as indicated by those that use Excel macros to dig through them, compare with older, try to track certain bars, and so on. Indirect data also indicates the metal is there. Mining/recycling/official sales to market data shows that the numbers are possible. Of course, one can decide to believe nobody. But in that case, well, good luck finding no gold at a current price despite all attempts? My own experience is that dealers were very happy to accept my orders (for silver then, but I assume gold is the same haha). In one occasion a dealer lied to me to still get the order, being that he claimed to be able to deliver all items, while a couple weeks later he asked what I wanted instead of a couple items on the order he lacked. And yes, that was at a 'low' price. Low at that time then, lol.
Direct and indirect data indicates that ETF's hold the gold/silver they claim to hold. They provide serial number lists of the bars. And be sure that these are nitpicked on every halfweird number, as indicated by those that use Excel macros to dig through them, compare with older, try to track certain bars, and so on. Indirect data also indicates the metal is there. Mining/recycling/official sales to market data shows that the numbers are possible. Of course, one can decide to believe nobody. But in that case, well, good luck finding no gold at a current price despite all attempts? My own experience is that dealers were very happy to accept my orders (for silver then, but I assume gold is the same haha). In one occasion a dealer lied to me to still get the order, being that he claimed to be able to deliver all items, while a couple weeks later he asked what I wanted instead of a couple items on the order he lacked. And yes, that was at a 'low' price. Low at that time then, lol.
Interesting article about serial numbers of specific gold bars. http://screwtapefiles.blogspot.ie/2013/03/screwtales-fed-gold-and-german-tanks.html
I've read a series of such interesting articles, and you end up as wise as when you started reading them. I remember that screwtapefiles blog from a previous article, that claimed that the Fed created and lent 16 trillion dollars. Since this topic is a core macro economical monetary parameter, I decided to dig into it, to find out what was true about it. Well, I could find the pdf file that was claimed of to be the original source, which was named as an investigation with the Fed as subject. Well, I indeed found that 16 trillion dollars, only that it was a blind-in-time total of chunks dollars lend out. Ignoring completely the term of each individual loan. To illustrate what I mean: it's like I lend you 1000 dollars for 1 week. Next week you pay me back, and I lend you again 1000 dollars, for 2 weeks (just random number). After 2 weeks, you pay me back. Well, what do the false story hunters do? They do 1000+1000 claiming that I lend you a total of 2000, while I just re-used the same 1000 2 times. And that's how they came to that 16 trillion ("not-term-adjusted") total. Hell, if they would take any central bank, and any period, you can make the total as high as you want, by just chosing the period. These blog stories, I look at them with some serious doubt, get what I mean? Instead, I try to verify things using other things, and if I don't find contradictional data, I assume they are acceptable to be titled as 'reality'.
Well if FED would allow for full audit of gold that is kept in his possession for one entity or the other, there wouldn't be any need for using the: Same as when I read government official numbers for inflation I have heard from Bernank, that gold is "tradition" or "barbarous relic", yet I'm suppose to believe official Fed reports? Ill be skeptical about them
What if indirect data (from other sources / related subjects) support given figures? Deny those too? Imagine a puzzle. You find a piece that shows a cigar. You find a piece that shows a lighter. You find a piece that shows a cowboy hat. You find a piece that shows a text 'marlboro'. One may now start to think the puzzle shows an advertisement. You can of course deny everything you read from official sources / sources that have to hold up some reputation. And rely on blogs that select the cowboy hat & ignore the rest to claim that the puzzle shows a priest in a church litting a candle.
