I stand corrected. Well played sir. Luckily I haven't been buying as I still feel the burn from a few years ago.
I have to say, I really respect the people on this board for the fact people will accept when they made a mistake and move on. Hardly happens in other places. Stack on Stackers! Other than the porn accounts thta pop up from time to time... :lol:
The question is really what the aussie is going to do. I've been shorting the aussie with CFD's to currency hedge but didn't give myself enough leeway and got stopped out before the RBA decision (won't make that mistake twice). I'm slowly building a long term position so that if and when gold hits $1000 usd I can take advantage of it instead of beating myself about the head when seeing that most frustrating of images at the top of the SS page, USD gold with a squiggly line going down $25 and AUS gold up $25.
QFT. Silver pretty much did the same last night, big USD drop and then the AUD dropped a similar amount, ended up AUDXAG dropping slightly but not as much as we would like.
This topic makes me remember the 2011-2012 days, where there was most reason for warnings, and least were given. There is another sucker side beside buying near the end of uptrends: selling near the end of downtrends. Of course, there is a bigger picture: <year> <average price silver USD> <average price gold USD> <ratio gold/silver> 2000 4.9506 279.11 56.38 2001 4.3702 271.04 62.02 2002 4.5995 309.73 67.34 2003 4.8758 363.38 74.53 average 5.01 331.188 66.54 2004 6.6711 409.72 61.42 2005 7.3164 444.74 60.79 2006 11.5452 603.46 52.27 2007 13.3836 695.39 51.96 2008 14.9891 871.96 58.17 2009 14.6733 972.35 66.27 2010 20.1928 1224.53 60.64 2011 35.1192 1571.52 44.75 2012 31.1497 1668.98 53.58 2013 23.7928 1411.23 59.31 2014 20.3715 1266.40 63.55 2015 15.9417 1174.29 73.66 Golds price is now at the mercy of the central planning: Central bank & other institutions - positive figure means total net = selling - negative figure means total net = buying year / tonnes / average gold price that year 1997 326 $330.98 1998 363 $294.24 1999 477 $278.88 2000 479 $279.11 2001 520 $271.04 2002 547 $309.73 2003 620 $363.38 2004 479 $409.72 2005 663 $444.74 2006 365 $603.46 2007 484 $695.39 2008 235 $871.96 2009 34 $972.35 >>> 5592 tonnes gold sold over the period 1997-2009 2010 -77 $1224.53 2011 -455 $1571.52 2012 -544.1 $1668.98 2013 -386.6(2014Q1) > -409.3(2014Q2) > -625.5 (2015Q1) $1411.23 2014 -477.2(2014Q4) > -588.0(2015Q1) > -590.5 (2015Q2) $1211.71 Imagine that they would cease buying. And even further: imagine that they would start selling instead. Special scenario? Not exactly, just the opposite of what they did in the years around 2009.
So... They were selling up till the end of 2009 and the price kept rising. They switched to buying and the price initially accelerated upwards until late 2012. They are still buying but the price has been falling and then a bit stagnant from 2013 till now. Next steps: If they switch to selling, or just stop buying, the price could collapse. If they keep buying at current levels, the price will stagnate. If they massively increase buying, it might cause the price to start increasing again and spur broader demand. Is that a correct summary?
Maybe they are building up ammunition for anticipated economic turmoil and mayhem. If the SHTF and people lose confidence in the global economy and the economic system and start piling into gold and dumping fiat causing a currency collapse and an accelerating gold price increase, then the banks can switch to selling off their gold reserves in an attempt to keep lid on price rises so as to restore (or attempt to restore) confidence in fiat? They might dump gold onto the market in an attempt to destroy demand. Is that speculation reasonable? .
In my opinion this is one of the reasons why central banks stack gold, to have a chance at influencing the price in this kind of scenario.
Selling 1 ounce is different from selling 10 ounces. Selling alone, or buying alone, isn't saying the whole story. The gold ETF story used as example: ETFs and similar products 1997 0 $330.98 1998 0 $294.24 1999 0 $278.88 2000 0 $279.11 2001 0 $271.04 2002 3 $309.73 $0.030b 2003 39 $363.38 $0.456b 2004 133 $409.72 $1.752b 2005 208 $444.74 $2.974b 2006 260 $603.46 $5.044b 2007 253 $695.39 $5.656b 2008 321 $871.96 $8.999b 2009 617 $972.35 $19.288b 2010 367.7 $1224.53 $11.822b 2011 154.0 $1571.52 $4.951b 2012 279.1 $1668.98 $8.973b <- +2634.8 2013 -916.3 $1411.23 -$41.561b 2014 -184.2 $1294.64 -$5.909b Those amounts US dollars are based on the average price and the tonnes. One can easily see how 2009, the pivot year of the central banks switching process, involved the biggest US dollars amount (19.288 billion). By far, since it was nearly the double amount of the earlier peak year, and also way more than the $11.822 billion of 2010. Look at how 2011 was a relative meager year with only 4.951 billion. Now look at 2013. A massive 41 billion US dollars were sweeped out the gold market. Now look at the central banks purchase that year: -625.5 tonnes. Also precisely that same year, a record net buying. It's clear who was whos counterparty. In this light, how "coincidental" is that hefty figure revision of 2013? The first report gave 386.6 tonnes. Two revisions later it was adjusted to 625.5 tonnes. Apparently they didn't want speculators to know too early what they were doing. You say: "If they massively increase buying, it might cause the price to start increasing again and spur broader demand." Well, the order of actions is the opposite, they monitor what speculators do, and use that to decide how much to buy or sell, as to inflict speculators less gold when buying or less fiat when selling. About "If they switch to selling, or just stop buying, the price could collapse.": Stopping buying is a single price effect. Switching between net buying and net selling, is a double price effect. So your "or", isn't that "or", one side of the equation is double the other.
But they influence the price already now. And they influenced in the past. What's the difference? That they now own a couple thousands tonnes gold more available to sell than in 2009? And it's the opposite, if those "people" (more accurate: the population part that saves) start piling into gold and dumping fiat, then central banks will NOT sell gold, to inflict those "people" less ounces gold.
Yes, but not dramatically, and they have an agreement in place to limit gold price volatility. The fact that they own a couple thousand more is not extremely relevant, of course, what counts is their total stack. They hold it for the same reason we hold it: lack of trust among them and to hedge their current reserves of foreign currencies. And if the population loses completely trust in centralized fiat currencies and starts using gold as a parallel form of money, central banks can even dump the entirety of their reserves as a last resort and trigger a collapse in gold price scaring people away from it. So, maybe my terminology was a little deceiving. Yes, they obviously influence the price now. I should have said that they want a chance at making the entire market collapse, if they need to.
Have noticed that over the past week there's been no crazy deals on gold on ebay, plenty of silver though. Whatever that means.
Usually that means gold spot will have less room to drop; while silver spot has more to drop. Gold and Silver weekly futures report actually confirmed it; Banksters' short/long ratio on gold is close to parity, but short/long ratio on silver is still about 2
I'm beginning to notice this as well. It seems like the metals folks knows when there is a supply rush and dump it on the market. No deals for spot at the moment like before. I'm still putting some cash together.
Leon wins again! Listening! Yanni - End of August (Live at El Morro, Puerto Rico) HD [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voGrImpO7sY[/youtube]
Interesting COT reports: Swap Dealers are NET LONG gold; but NET SHORT silver. Next two weeks leading to December's FOMC meeting, could be quiet due to Thanksgiving Holiday; I believe an interim bottom is approaching. Really hope Silver can make one more drop so that I can order some coins WITH holiday special pricing
I expect the opposite. I think the market has priced in the rate rise. The fact that we're not closer to $1000 right now, with the massive shorts put on by the specs, to me it seems like there is really strong support at these levels. But time will tell.
Paper gold, gold to a billion dollars when it all comes apart...... It's like hearing "Eagle Rock" for the millionth time on the radio.................the tune is worn out and as for "Good old Eagle Rocks here to stay"..........well it never really started, let alone stay. Just like paper gold. The tune just keeps on getting played.
