As published on http://www.cmegroup.com/delivery_reports/Gold_Stocks.xls This is a snapshot of some days ago: (Last . separated token of 3 digits is 1/1000 of ounce) [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/1798_gold_stocks20140731.jpg][/imgz] The column headers are named as follows: DEPOSITORY | PREV TOTAL | RECEIVED | WITHDRAWN | NET CHANGE | ADJUSTMENT | TOTAL TODAY In above snapshot, you can see that there was an ADJUSTMENT for HSBC BANK, USA, being that Registered was adjusted down (-104.455) and Eligible adjusted up (104.455). So this must/should be 104.455 ounces (so a fat 104 ounces) that were reclassified from Registered to Eligible. No gold was shipped / moved, just electronically relabeled. If there would be gold shipped, RECEIVED and/or WITHDRAWN fields should be above zero. Now check this: [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/1798_gold_stocks20140804.jpg][/imgz] Look at what happened for depository JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA RECEIVED is 289.350.000, which is also the NET CHANGE, but now there is an ADJUSTMENT where ONLY the Eligible field differs from 0.000, being 594.506.898. The Registered field is 0.000. How is this possible? That amount is aside RECEIVED, and it's also bigger so even can't, yet the Eligible didn't drop, so it's like this ADJUSTED gold already was present in the depository, but not reflected in the spreadsheet. Let's now compare it with the data for the day-earlier report (weekend between): [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/1798_gold_stocks20140801.jpg][/imgz] Activity Date 8/1/2014 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA PREV TOTAL: Registered 288.540.533 Eligible 1.016.826.403 Total 1.305.366.936 NET CHANGE: Registered 0.000 Eligible -595.102.000 Total -595.102.000 <- 18.50975 tonnes left the depository TOTAL TODAY: Registered 288.540.533 Eligible 421.724.403 Total 710.264.936 Activity Date 8/4/2014 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA PREV TOTAL: Registered 288.540.533 Eligible 421.724.403 Total 710.264.936 NET CHANGE: Registered 0.000 Eligible 289.350.000 Total 289.350.000 <- 8.99979 tonnes re-added to the depository TOTAL TODAY: Registered 288.540.533 Eligible 1.305.581.301 <- TOTAL should be 711.074.403 or 22.1169 tonnes, but it's 40.60815 tonnes. Total 1.594.121.834 The TOTAL doesn't addup, I tried various sums to see if there was an obvious error (ex adding twice a same figure) but so far didn't find any such. The new Eligible TOTAL is 594.506.898 or 18.4912 tonnes too much. And that is what is listed in the ADJUSTMENT field. Comparing PREV TOTAL with TOTAL TODAY, it's like JP MORGAN doubled it's gold stock over the weekend, yet the calculation fails, with some 18.5 tonnes of it popping out of nothing (as in: not present in their data before). Is it possible that Comex depositories store unlisted gold, ex. gold that has some owner that 'just' uses the depot without intention for futures market / Registered / Eligible, that then later on changes mind, and make it as such?
I just read this today: (source: http://www.kitco.com/news/2014-08-0...-This-As-Sign-Market-Could-Be-Bottoming.html)
I ask questions when I'm unable to find answers or it starts to take too long to find them. In such a case, it has to be asked, and there are two options: either I contact the ctfc either I ask 'around', alike here. Ex. not that long ago I did the first in a case of silverinstitute historical data and a new demand/supply classification, with some unclarities in linking new back to old, as to have 'same' data before and after the reclassification, required when you want to compare. Sometimes I do both, as to see if there is any contradiction. What I noticed in this topics case, is that it looks like possible that commodity exchange depositories store commodity that is not incorporated in their stock spreadsheets. In order to judge this event on a longer time scale (to see for ex if an opposite event has occurred, gold 'disappearing' without a WITHDRAWN, I would need to parse all the .xls files I downloaded, as to transform them to a series tables from which trends can be constructed, which is alot work without dedicated software. It may give some insight in how many times and when such 'sneaky' gold changes occurred, but it still wouldn't give any definite answer. About number of open positions, to judge the current gold price level over a shorter term, it requires determining the part of the price that is due to hedging and indirectly due to price expectations over that term. If I gather this data from the last $1244.80>$1326.60 price uptrend (+6.6%): 22/07/2014 160191 $1307.00 15/07/2014 156906 $1295.90 08/07/2014 166003 $1322.50 01/07/2014 160455 $1326.60 <- peak uptrend, delta of +97011 gold futures contracts of 100 ounces 24/06/2014 131607 $1312.40 17/06/2014 63444 $1266.90 10/06/2014 63150 $1261.60 03/06/2014 63444 $1244.80 <- start uptrend ... then one can see that this amount of contracts, being net totals (since that is what matters for the price), still sits close to its peak. During this 6.6% price uptrend, 97011 x 100 = 9.701 Moz gold, or an extra of 301.74 tonnes gold, became hedged against price changes. Owners of 300 tonnes gold decided to lock in their price. Let's now look which 'kind' of traders decided this, start versus end price uptrend of 6.6% 22/07/2014 160191 $1307.00 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long 35624 Short 92941 Net: -57317 <- 133.6 tonnes more planned sales hedged against price drops. SwapDealer Long 61849 Short 164723 Net: -102874 <- 167.3 tonnes more planned sales hedged against price drops. ManagedMoney Long 148121 Short 22395 Net: 125726 <- 272.3 tonnes more planned purchases hedged against price increases. OtherReportables Long 49714 Short 29294 Net: 20420 <- 1.7 tonnes less planned purchases hedged against price increases. SmallTraders Long 41487 Short 27442 Net: 14045 <- 30.33 tonnes more planned purchased hedged against price increases. 03/06/2014 63444 $1244.80 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long 48855 Short 63220 Net: -14365 SwapDealer Long 67407 Short 116486 Net: -49079 ManagedMoney Long 111245 Short 73063 Net: 38182 OtherReportables Long 46087 Short 25118 Net: 20969 SmallTraders Long 36858 Short 32565 Net: 4293 The big money guys show a tendency to end up at the winning side. The counterparties of swap dealers tend to be big money guys. And money managers are large traders / big money guys too. Usually, those money managers are the counterparties of the swap dealers. This all makes clear who drove the cash price up along futures: the big money. The least to rely on, haha. The same happened on the silver market, of course it matters there more for the price, since the % of the hedge is usually twice the one of gold, measured against worlds annuals total demand/supply (traded). What has this to do with the comex depositories? Little to nothing? Because 99% of those contracts doesn't end in delivery of the metal anyways. It just gets relabeled where it sits. Why? Due to people that didn't want it long term, they only bought it to chew out some free dollars from the underlying market. Something to ponder about when thinking of adding to the stack when the comex position sits high (like now). The lack of a correlation between depositories stock trend and price trend also supports this. Which relation do you see TreasureHunter?
..and post #4 was the exact reaction I was looking for regarding yr reaction to my previous post(#2) :lol:
I also look for a reaction. So far yours had little substance. If a butterfly would shear your post it probably gets erased by its slipstream.
Isn't there a disclaimer at the bottom of the figures page that essentially states the figures are "not to be relied upon" ? (i.e. Bogus)
That is since a couple years now I think. I also think that this is to avoid being targeted with a legal case if there would be errors. Take for ex. Silver Institute. It often revises figures upto 5 years ago. I didn't actually check it, didn't came to my mind yet, but I don't think it has such disclaimer. Maybe because they so far never had someone trying to make a legal case with it. Maybe that was the trigger for the disclaimer of this stock reports case. And the exact statement is not the one that you quote here. It's this: That is a substantial difference with your quote.
It's not upto you to decide that, it's upto the reader, and if you use quotes then you suggest readers that it is what was written there, which is not the case. Is Fort Knox empty of Gold? Do you know? Do I know? What evidence is there? Do you know? Do I know? I don't, because so far this subject wasn't of interest to me. And I also don't really care, since there are production figures available, and since it doesn't really matter who owns how much gold, it's more the size of the stockpile as a whole, that matters. About the subject of this topic, that interests me more than Fort Knox Gold or no Gold, and since none so far gave an answer, I asked the comex for an explanation. The answer was: (I added those spaces in the text to prevent a google sentence search for finding this post) Conclusion? Avoidance of answering. Because "various circum stances" says nothing. It's quite simple: 1) Stock X in depository 2) ADJUSTMENT without RECEIVED and/or WITHDRAWN 3) Stock X+Y in depository Where did Y come from? or Where did Y go to? "Various circum stances". Heh!
So the remaining option now is to dig through the daily snapshot .xls files that I accumulated over time, as to have at least an idea on how many times this occurs, their quantity range, and eventual time matches with gold price/market based events/changes. Does anyone know software that can parse xls files to csv or other common text files so parsable without format knowledge?
This program offers a free trial and might help you out. This batch converter might also help you out.
dude,dont get me wrong.If we had a sarcasm smiley I would have put it there.I am amazed by yr vast knowledge and interest towards precious metals. I just read and observe if u dont mind. U post some valuable point but try to put yr post shorter and more to the point and next time I might take the time to read the whole lot I think I made a good observation about u.U keep an eye on all these graphs and what not hence u bought heaps of metal on the top....care to explain that?
I can see that a depository may have made recording errors in its vaults and need to make adjustments to correct these, but the adjustment you have found is way too big to just be a recording error. I cannt work out what the other circumstances could be. For what it is worth, and doesn't explain this situation, I have observed errors in the spreadsheet but these are only over public holidays where figures in a cell in the spreadsheet have the last report's figures - it is like they don't clear the spreadsheet and someone is just typing over the report's last figures and they don't type "0" into a cell where no figures are reported to the cftc. It does not seem to me that this spreadsheet report is computer generated so human errors are going to occur. I also note the recent cftc fine of JPM for inaccurate reporting. Basically seems like neither banks nor cftc really care too much about accuracy.
Ed Steer quoting Ted Butler http://www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/edition/central-banks-continuing-to-boost-gold-reserves "Ted pointed out something that I'd missed in Tuesday's column on Comex gold inventories---and that was the fact that the 595,102 troy ounces that the report showed withdrawn from JPMorgan on Friday was, with the exception of a few ounces, totally reversed in Monday's report from the Comex." That got me to look at these numbers again. If you subtract the 594,506.898 Monday adjustment from the Friday figure of 595,102.000 you get 595.102. That is not a coincidence. In other words, the Friday figure was a fat finger keying error, where someone in JPM keyed in 595 comma 102 instead of 595 point 102!
Posted on it here http://www.goldchat.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/jpms-18-tonne-comex-fat-finger.html. Makes me wonder if the whole gold industry is held together with spreadsheets
I didn't and still don't know how to get you. That's what I ment with little substance. You placed posts but no clear statement or even purpose of the post. About making shorter posts, I have two options: I claim something, and the reader blindly believes it, or I claim something, and show where the claim is based on. I prefer the latter, because once you understand how I came to the claim and where I got the data for it, you can just ignore my long posts. I consider that more efficient and on the longer term, better. Independency is always good. There are some others out there, that make claims, without giving the data, as to make you dependent on further reading them, with no way to verify the claims. I don't make long posts because it's fun or because I don't have anything else to do. I make them because I think it's worth it. Alot people lose in the silver market. I don't like that. I see others in the same boat not as milking cows or class pupils. I see them as people that try the same as me: escape the parasites theft. This is a morale story. If you don't like it too, ignore it as well. That's all I can say. About me buying heaps of metal on the top, not exactly true - never paid above $32.5 and it went never above it earlier (ignoring 1980 here), yet true in the degree of comparing $32 to today. How it came? Simple: back then I didn't know the things I now say. The capital error I made was that I thought that the dollars created in the quantitative easing operation would be spent. They weren't, because the Fed raised the reserve requirements with them too. Looking back I can only conclude that QE were a scam, the purpose was not to spend more dollars, but to make speculators think so. They got me. Now trying to do better.
