CBGA Signatories' Gold Reserves (rounded to the nearest tonne) start-CBGA end-2002 Germany 3,469 3,446 France 3,025 3,025 Italy 2,452 2,452 Switzerland 2,590 1,917 Netherlands 1,012 852 ECB 747 767 Portugal 607 592 Spain 523 523 Austria 407 318 United Kingdom 664 314 Belgium 258 258 Others 374 365 Total 16,128 14,829 Central banks net sales (tonnes, - = purchases) year / tonnes sold / average price US$ 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 2010 -77 1224.53 2011 -455 1571.52 2012 -544.1 1668.98 2013 -409.3 1411.23 To who did central banks sell gold to during 1997-2009? And who are they buying from during 2010-2013? I wonder, because considering the amounts/price trend, they are clearly selling low and buying high, thus giving away handsome profits, on the decades term. It's about thousands of tonnes and big amounts in single operations, so it must be some bullion banks or so? Anyone with some insight in how and with who central banks do their gold trades with? Anything reported somewhere? =========== Second gold question, US Mint sales Gold AGE + buffalo24k: 1986 1,787,750 1987 1,253,000 1988 560,000 1989 503,500 1990 457,450 1991 253,000 1992 385,800 1993 514,000 1994 310,000 1995 297,750 1996 275,000 1997 771,250 <- record high US Mint gold sales since 1988 1998 1,839,500 <- new and alltime record high 2 US Mint gold sales since 1988 1999 2,055,500 <- new and alltime record high 1 US Mint gold sales since 1988 2000 164,500 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 (even alltime record low instead) 2001 325,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2002 315,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2003 484,500 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2004 536,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2005 449,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2006 261,000 323,000 = 584,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2007 198,500 167,500 = 366,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2008 860,500 172,000 = 1,032,500 2009 1,435,000 200,000 = 1,635,000 2010 1,220,500 209,000 = 1,429,500 2011 1,000,000 174,500 = 1,174,500 2012 753,000 132,000 = 885,000 2013 856,500 239,000 = 1,095,500 Total 21,739,500 partly 1997, but especially 1998, 1999, 2 years with record US Mint gold coin sales, records that were even not broken in the post 2008 period. While the gold price then were record lows. year / silver price / gold price / ratio 1978 5.930 193.22 32.58 1979 21.793 306.68 14.07 1980 16.393 612.56 37.37 1981 8.432 460.03 54.56 1982 10.586 375.67 35.49 1983 9.121 424.35 46.52 1984 6.694 360.48 53.85 1985 5.888 317.26 53.88 1986 5.364 367.66 68.54 1987 6.790 446.46 65.75 1988 6.108 436.94 71.54 1989 5.543 381.44 68.81 1990 4.068 383.51 94.27 1991 3.909 362.11 92.63 1992 3.710 343.82 92.67 1993 4.968 359.77 72.42 1994 4.769 384.00 80.52 1995 5.148 384.17 74.63 1996 4.730 387.77 81.98 1997 5.945 330.98 55.67 <- record low gold price since 1986 1998 5.549 294.24 53.03 <- new record low gold price 1986 1999 5.218 278.88 53.45 <- new record low gold price 1986 2000 4.9506 279.11 56.38 3 years of decade record low gold prices combined with 3 years of record high US Mint gold sales. That, is a very remarkable coincidence. It could be said that the rest of the world was selling gold. Some US Mint primary dealers were buying gold instead. And 1 year later, in 2000, US Mints gold coin sales dropped to an alltime record low instead. If we compare with their ASE silver coin sales: Silver ASE 1986 5,096,000 1987 9,420,000 1988 5,869,000 1989 6,166,000 1990 7,247,000 1991 6,952,000 1992 5,544,000 1993 5,890,000 1994 5,540,500 1995 4,590,000 1996 3,466,000 1997 3,636,000 <- nothing special 1998 4,320,000 <- nothing special 1999 9,008,500 <- record high US Mint silver sales since 1988 2000 9,133,000 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2001 8,827,500 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2002 10,475,500 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2003 9,153,500 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2004 9,617,000 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2005 8,405,000 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2006 10,021,000 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2007 9,887,000 <- US Mint silver sales stay on this record high since 1988 2008 19,583,500 2009 28,766,500 2010 34,662,500 2011 39,868,500 2012 33,742,500 2013 42,675,000 2014 26,103,500 Total: 383,666,500 Some remarkable US Mint sales differences between gold and silver, there. Anyone knows some background stories?
Some of the numbers sold might be due to availability, rather than demand. I've no idea, but the years of remarkably low AGE sales might just be fewer minted, for whatever reason. All interesting data though. I assumed central banks 'sold' gold mostly to other central banks, to balance trade deficits. That, once upon a time, was its role. Perhaps now it's to bullion banks for cash or foreign reserves?
Over the 1997-1999 years, the US Mint gold coin sales figures doubled/tripled. Two alltime records that so far stayed unmatched even post 2008. In 2000, they dropped to 8% of what they were in 1999. If the gold market had been consisting only of US Mint gold coins, it would have been like a price that goes from: 1996 $10 1997 $28 1998 $67 1999 $75 2000 $6 Such changes are not peanuts. There must have been some specific reason in that late nineties for this sudden rush on US Mint gold coins I lack figures of other Mints so can't say if it happened at others. For ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Silver_Maple_Leaf shows all the mintages for the silver maples. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Gold_Maple_Leaf only shows nonbullion mintages. About central bank sales, my figures are NET. That net figure is the remainder van their eventual "inbetween" sales. That's btw precisely what those CBGA "Central Bank Gold Agreements" are about. So already from the beginning, they actually sold those amounts to "market" (and my topic is to find out who/what kind).
I don't have any supporting facts but my guess is the '99 sales had to do with the wide spread belief of the EoW Y2K. I remember some very smart people I knew stocking up on PM, food ratios and they bought water purification systems. Of course their homes were stocked with guns and ammo like WW3 was on the way. Many of them spent that New Year's eve locked in their homes ready for the end of society. 2000 showed up, business as usual, and no one wanted the stock piles of crap they had so they sold it off leaving little demand for new ones. I think (to tie this to the conspiracy theory thread) gold is a mental safe haven for fear. Those folks who live in fear of their world are attracted to it. No facts to support but just my thoughts.
Man I was a gorner if Y2K had actually turned out to be real. I was so wasted (early 20s) that night. Last thing I remember doing was a mangina in front of a gfs mother before blacking out. No preparation at all for Y2K.
A pity that you don't have facts. If this thought of you would be correct, then alot other markets must have also seen such bigger 'hoarding' (if I can name it like this) and thus such bigger sales. To take into account is this: the gold and silver prices did NOT rise due to it, so the extra US Mint sales must have been offset by more sales. Even more, exactly those US Mint gold decadespeak sales years were record LOW prices instead. year / silver / gold / GSR 1997 5.945 330.98 55.67 <- record low gold price since 1986 1998 5.549 294.24 53.03 <- new record low gold price 1986 1999 5.218 278.88 53.45 <- new record low gold price 1986 2000 4.9506 279.11 56.38 <- about the same record low price since 1986 So, it doesn't look like your thought sees much support. However, let's take a look at the central banks net gold sales those years: year / tonnes sold / average price US$ 1996 no data (a PITY! Anyone knows?) 1997 326 330.98 1998 363 294.24 <- +37 tonnes 1999 477 278.88 <- +114 tonnes 2000 479 279.11 <- +2 tonnes 2001 520 271.04 <- +41 tonnes 2002 547 309.73 <- +27 tonnes 2003 620 363.38 <- +73 tonnes 2004 479 409.72 <- -141 tonnes 2005 663 444.74 <- +184 tonnes 2006 365 603.46 The central bank gold sales clearly increased during 1997-2000. In 3 years, they sold an EXTRA total of 153 tonnes. Let's now compare with the US Mint amounts (CRAP that all gold figures are given in tonnes, why don't they just do in Moz like they do for silver, are they doing this to make comparisons harder?) 1996 275,000 1997 771,250 <- record high US Mint gold sales since 1988 <- +496,250 ounces 1998 1,839,500 <- new and alltime record high 2 US Mint gold sales since 1988 <- +1,068,250 ounces 1999 2,055,500 <- new and alltime record high 1 US Mint gold sales since 1988 <- +216,000 ounces 2000 164,500 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 (even alltime record low instead) <- -1,891,000 ounces 2001 325,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2002 315,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2003 484,500 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2004 536,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2005 449,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2006 261,000 323,000 = 584,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 2007 198,500 167,500 = 366,000 <- US Mint gold sales do NOT stay on the record high since 1988 So let's now put side to side both central bank extra gold sales and US Mints extra AGE gold coin sales for these 3 record US Mint gold sales years: Extra central bank sales / Extra US Mint sales (latter recalculated to tonnes) 1997 +unknown since no 1996 central bank gold sales data +15.435 tonnes 1998 +37 tonnes +33.23 tonnes 1999 +114 tonnes +67.2 tonnes 2000 +2 tonnes -58.82 tonnes Now, (and this is very interesting) the peak EXTRA gold sales by central banks, is in the same 1999 year as the peak EXTRA US Mint AGE gold sales. And, 1998 was almost a match, central banks sold just 3.77 tonnes more, than the US Mint sold gold AGE coins. That's pretty equal. But central bank 1996 sales figure is missing, so it could like be double that. And, in 2000, central banks had a near zero net sales. While US Mints gold AGE sales collapsed to the lowest figure ever (2000 164,500 ounces or a mere 5.12 tonnes gold). All this together, draws a funny picture, and I should have expected it. It's like the central banks throttle their gold sales with the gold coin demand. Is it possible that the gold for the US Mints blancs came from central bank sales? These central bank sales are a worlds net total. I have no idea which central bank sold what in which year. Anyone aware of World Gold Council (or former Gold Institute) historical data? Aside of your EoW Y2K event, there was another thing to arrive then: the introduction of the European common currency, the Euro. That was a quite big event and it could be that those US Mint gold coin hoarders thought that the Euro would have negative consequences for the dollar / the US. Are there any "oldies" here that bought gold coins in the late nineties?
It is an absolute fact that the US Mint coin sales you observe were driven by Y2K concerns and the drop off after that was because of most of that coin being sold back into the market when Y2K was a flop - there was so much secondary metal in the market dealers didn't need to buy new coins from the mints. If you don't want to take my word for it even though I was working at the Perth Mint then, suggest you delve deeper into the actual coin sizes sold by the US Mint and I think you'll find usually high sales of fractional coins.
I ask questions like these from a worldwide / price perspective, so in order to judge on that level, I have to assemble as much data/viewpoints as I can, in order to have a sample big enough to make a general conclusion from it. That's why I searched for other Mint sales figures, so far with little success. So this isn't about believing or not believing someone. It's about trying to get a complete picture and the question is if your australian based experience reflected the worldwide one. I calculated a quick list, the latter is the ratio that the 'big' 1oz coins had in the total ounces. year / 1oz / <1oz / % of 1oz 1993 439,000 514,000 85.4 1994 243,500 310,000 78.5 1995 226,000 297,750 75.9 1996 194,500 275,000 70.7 1997 661,500 771,250 85.8 1998 1,518,500 1,839,500 82.5 1999 1,511,000 2,055,500 73.5 2000 94,000 164,500 57.1 2001 245,000 325,000 75.4 2002 239,500 315,000 76 2003 405,500 484,500 83.7 2004 437,000 536,000 81.5 2005 351,500 449,000 78.3 2000 shows a big drop, but the years before and after were not standing out in any direction. If your viewpoint would have been the case for the US Mint sales then I would expect that % something like this: 1996 80 <- normal 1oz % of total ounces 1997 80 1998 80 1999 50 <- normal -30 2000 90 <- normal +10 2001 90 <- normal +10 2002 90 <- normal +10 2003 80 2004 80 So the extra 30% fractional coins compensated for by 3 years 10% less fractional coins. Such figures trend would confirm your viewpoint. But we don't see that in the figures. These show that the 2000 year (which is btw also already post Y2K which sounds like rather late for a Y2K bug 'preparation') was a peak fractional sales year. But 2001-2004 were as normal as 1993-1999 The average in the 'normal' level is indeed lower around Y2K but not in a degree enough to justify a conclusion (and also post Y2K). And let's maybe plug this same "preparation" idea around the 2008 crisis and the subsequent US 'Great Recession' 2006 524,500 584,000 90% (introduction of Gold Buffalo coin) 2007 315,000 366,000 86.1% 2008 966,000 1,032,500 93.6% 2009 1,525,500 1,635,000 93.3% 2010 1,352,000 1,429,500 94.6% In 2007 we see a drop. But what is 4%? And when the crisis 'broke' out, and intensified, and realworld (nonfinancial) effects started, and later on lotsa quantitative easing suggesting serious inflation, one may have assumed people, just like in the Y2K hypothesis, would rather hoard fractional coins instead of 1oz. But they didn't. It rose instead, but not worth mentioning (1%). So this fractional coin hoarding, based on idea of purchasing stuff with gold coins instead of the 'fiat' currency, is like not much supported by figures. This of course doesn't route out the Y2K explanation, it's just that % fractional coin sales figures doesn't appear like a supporting element of it. Regarding the Y2K explanation itself, apparently the central banks didn't see much danger in it, because their reaction was the opposite of the one of the gold coin buyers: they sold more instead, as said: 1999 was a peak of extra US Mint gold coin sales, AND a peak of extra central bank gold sales.
Came across a wellknown story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...you-sold-Britains-gold-Gordon-Brown-told.html Know what's funny? The criticism here is that the politicians sold gold at its bottom price then and that this costed the taxpayer 7 billion Now check the last sentence, I bold tagged it. Where is the same criticism? tonnes sold, - = buying 1997 326 1998 363 ----------- 1999 477 Over this period 1999-2002 the UK politicians sold 395 tonnes. 2000 479 But the total central bank sales was 2023 tonnes. 2001 520 So the UKs part in it was only 19.5% 2002 547 Yet the article suggests like the UK politicians acted stupid at a time other politianc were smart. ----------- 2003 620 2004 479 2005 663 2006 365 2007 484 Buying high is just the same as selling low. 2008 235 2009 34 ---------- 2010 -77 Over this period 1727.5 tonnes gold bought. 2011 -455 2012 -544.1 2013 -409.3 2014Q12 -242.1 ---------- Over these recent years, politicians / central banks inflicted themselves losses almost as big as around 2000. But no criticism. One may wonder how blind the authors of this article are.
must have thought let's buy golds price higher instead of giving bank deposit owners a higher intrest?
I wasn't talking about the ratio, I was about the amount of sales. People were also buying 1oz to use as money in addition to fractional. If you look at those US Mint figures and the 98 and 99 years don't stand out to you as Y2K driven I don't know what to say. If you also won't take my own personal experience at the time which is not Australian based as 90% of so of our stuff is sold overseas and 50% of our Depository clients are US does not mean anything to you, then I suggest emailing any gold commentator who was around then, say Ted Butler or the longer term coin dealers and ask whether that was Y2K, or Euro fears or some other reason. I have no doubt their answer will be Y2K was the driver of those sales. Please let us know how you go.
Please take into account that you said this in your previous post, as to give a support to a Y2K reason for the peak gold sales: Those ratios I calculated, were total 1 ouncers divided by total ounces. The lower the ratio, the more fractional coins sold, the higher the ratio, the less fractional coins sold. So all I did, was checking your argument of high sales of fractional coins. I thought you wanted to use higher fractional coins sales to suggest that people thought fiatmoney/banks/etc would be hampered by Y2K, and that they bought fractional gold coins as to be able to pay stuff independent of what happens to the 'system'. Since you now seem to have digged that fractional coin element, what is left that supports Y2K? It's not because one event happens the year before another event, that the former has to be the cause of the latter. I'm here not routing out Y2K as an explanation, I want to see data actually proving that connection. One may assume that people 'hoarded' more than gold coins. Sales figures of other stuff that show the same years as peaks, would support the Y2K idea. And the Euro introduction is also a major possible cause. Think with me: a single common currency in the EU, wouldn't people with dollars not be concerned that this new block may affect the US dollars value? Maybe I should check if the US dollars value had a substantial downturn then. I wasn't scared about Y2K, and actually I don't know anyone (west EU region) that was, let alone started to hoard stuff. Are people that buy gold coins shortsighted? I don't think so. And let's not forget what the gold price did during those super gold coin sales years: it DROPPED, implying that the extra purchases were more than offset by extra sales. So, a Y2K related possible computer date glitch reason, while not digging it, just appears less plausible to me.
I decided to recap on this. So far I was unfamiliar with the terminology "bail in" so I had looked it up. I now know what it is, and it's irrelevant on the subject because it doesn't change the direction of the dollar stream, it's just bank customers paying through bank instead of bank itself paying. But my original / wrong assumption what it was, made me think. I assume central banks don't shop their gold bars together at hundreds dealers. Most likely, gold bullion banks were/are their counterparties. That means that these receive some serious sponsoring from central banks. Central banks sponsor bullion banks by selling gold at low price and buying it back at high price. The result, is profit for the bullion bank. If I was a central bank, and I sponsored bullion banks with other peoples money/purchasing power, then wouldn't I want the favor in return? In the end, if I, as a central bank, give so many billion to a bullion bank, or any entity, that can freely spend it, I would be concerned about the price-inflationary effects of its spending. So, that favor in return, should be a partly (or total) payback of the sponsoring. Now, how would I, as a central bank, explain such return favor to the public? Which reason / excuse can I give, for bullion banks paying billions to central banks? Well, I got an idea. Fines. Penalties. It's just a perfect excuse. There was a crisis, banks wasted over the years many billions of depositors / shareholders money, and I, as a central bank / government, so called didn't know. Perfect reason for fines/penalties. So, I decided to gather some data about the fines post crisis. These are the worlds LBMA clearing members: Barclays Bank PLC ScotiaMocatta Deutsche Bank AG HSBC Bank JPMorgan Chase Bank UBS AG The question now is, what do they do in return? Barclays Bank PLC: In June 2012, as a result of an international investigation, Barclays Bank was fined a total of 290 million (US$450 million) for manipulating the daily settings of London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). In July 2013 US energy regulator the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered Barclays to pay 299m (US$464 million) fine penalty for attempting to manipulate electricity market in the US. The fine by FERC relates to allegations in December 2008.[128] The UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA), which levied a fine of 59.5 million ($92.7 million), gave Barclays the biggest fine it had ever imposed in its history. In May 2014 the Financial Conduct Authority fined the bank 26 million ($40.3 million) over systems and controls failures, and conflict of interest in relation to the bank and its customers in connection to the gold fixing during the period 2004-2013, and for manipulation of the gold price on 28 June 2012.[129] TOTAL 1047 JPMorgan Chase Bank: On November 19, 2013, the Justice Department announced that JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $13 billion to settle investigations into its business practices pertaining to mortgage-backed securities. In November 2009, JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to a $722 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to end a probe into sales of derivatives that helped push Alabama's most populous county to the brink of bankruptcy. In June 2010, J.P. Morgan Securities was fined a record 33.32 million ($49.12 million) by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) for failing to protect an average of 5.5 billion of clients' money from 2002 to 2009 In May 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class action lawsuit. On July 23, 2012, Chase agreed to pay $100 million to settle the claim.[74] In July 2013, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a stipulation and consent agreement under which JPMorgan Ventures Energy Corporation (JPMVEC), a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., agreed to pay $410 million in penalties and disgorgement to ratepayers for allegations of market manipulation stemming from the company's bidding activities in electricity markets in California and the Midwest from September 2010 through November 2012. JPMVEC agreed to pay a civil penalty of $285 million to the U.S. Treasury and to disgorge $125 million in unjust profits. JPMVEC admitted the facts set forth in the agreement, but neither admitted nor denied the violations. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, New York, NY ("JPMC") has agreed to remit $88,300,000 to settle potential civil liability for apparent violations of: the Cuban Assets Control Regulations ("CACR"), On January 7, 2014, JPMorgan agreed to pay a total of $2.05 billion in fines and penalties to settle civil and criminal charges related to its role in the Madoff scandal. JPMorgan also agreed to pay a $350 million fine to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and settle the suit filed against it by Picard for $543 million.[82][83][84][85] On September 18, 2013, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay a total of $920 million in fines and penalties to American and UK regulators for violations related to the trading loss and other incidents. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1208_en.htm UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, Citigroup and RP Martin were involved in one or several of the infringements of EU competition rules. The fines imposed for the EIRD cartel are as follows: JPMorgan 465.861.000 ($630 million) The fines imposed for the YIRD cartels are as follows: JPMorgan 79.897.000 ($108 million) TOTAL 19447.42 Deutsche Bank AG: This settlement came subsequent and in addition to Deutsche's $1.93 billion settlement with the US Housing Finance Agency over similar litigation related to the sale of mortgage backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[34] Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc are among six companies fined a record 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) by the European Union for rigging interest rates linked to Libor. Deutsche Bank was fined 725 million euros ($981 million), the biggest single penalty. TOTAL 2911 HSBC Bank: 11 December 2012 Last updated at 17:52 HSBC has confirmed it is to pay US authorities $1.9bn (1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case. TOTAL 1900 UBS AG: Switzerland's largest bank UBS was forced to pay a $780 million fine to the US in 2009 while the country's oldest bank Wegelin collapsed under the weight of a criminal case last year. (the $1.5 billion of the Libor scandal was scrapped for "revealing cartels existence") TOTAL 780 >>> Total fines that LBMA's bullion banks paid to governments: 26,085,420,000 $US Now let's try an estimate of the central banks gold purchases since 2010. Unless someone knows a list of the actual purchases in tonnes and the prices, I can only use average year prices. year / tonnes / avg price/ounce / total 2010 77 1224.53 3,031,580,941 2011 455 1571.52 22,990,071,529 2012 544.1 1668.98 29,197,043,150 2013 409.3 1411.23 18,571,567,373 TOTAL RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL BANKS: 73,790,262,993 $USD This is a rough total that the bullion banks may have received on their gold sales to the central banks. It's not their profit ofcourse. That (mathematical) profit depends on what they paid for it in the past. Bullion banks store big amounts gold for long periods. What did they pay for the gold that they sold high to central banks since 2010? Central banks were net sellers over at least 1997-2009. If we take price pivot year 2004 as reference, so 2004-2009 then they bought 2260 tonnes from central banks. Let's do the same calculation here: year / tonnes / avg price/ounce / total 2004 479 409.72 6,310,033,877 2005 663 444.74 9,480,445,229 2006 365 603.46 7,081,909,397 2007 484 695.39 10,821,384,192 2008 235 871.96 6,588,301,088 2009 34 972.35 1,062,944,402 TOTAL PAID TO CENTRAL BANKS: 41,345,018,185 $US Notice how the amount PAID is LOWER than the amount RECEIVED. That, is a BINGO. Let's calculate the actual difference: 73,790,262,993 - 41,348,018,185 = 32,442,244,808 $US Conclusion: US$ 26 billion paid to governments as fines/penalties for 'market rigging'. US$ 32 billion received from governments central banks in their intimate gold buying/selling party. Despite those fines/penalties and gold purchase/sales should be entirely different matters, the figures sit quite close to eachother, don't they? Like it was start 2014, the difference is 6 billion. That's all. Should this surprise? Maybe not. Central banks and bullion banks may well work together against speculators that try to evade their fiatcurrency based theft, speculators being their common enemy. CAVEATS: - As said, this isn't accurate, I don't know the exact prices of their deals, but average year figures should at least have a fair statistical representation. - I also didn't spend much time in collecting above penalties/fines, so I might have missed some, but they would bring the two figures even closer to eachother so supporting the conclusion even more. - I also have no clue whether some fines were deductable from taxes. The only fact I know is that for Switzerlands USB case they was TALK about it, criticism on it, and I don't know how that turned out.
it is most common that manipulation is un-detected. what is manipulated is a spot, but the derivatives is the underlying. so long as forward are fixed, and never really publicly being reported. so we have the manipulated goes un-detected. which can not be proven. . . . in a war against gold, you talk about the cost of that war. it is not logical to prove the existence of profit as the driver for manipulation, when the real evidence is costs. sure there are people profiting from selling those trojan weapons. if a person's job is to manipulate, then he is himself self evidence to believe that his imagination is playing tricks and his doing is for real. what is real and what is fake up is beyond his imagination. this is just my opinion.
The word "manipulation" can be put on whatever, even holding and slamming a hammer can be named as manipulating a hammer. So I mostly avoid using the word. There are many words that far more specific, alike controlling, planning, organizing, agreeing, negotiating, frontrunning, cheating, stealing, faking and so on. While alot of these terms overlap eachother, they all have a specific situation where they are more accurate than the others. And this, helps alot in making things clear. For ex, instead of saying that central banks manipulate, I say that they control interest rates, that they organize with other central banks, that they agree with bullion banks to control the gold price, and so on. The word manipulation is thus a nothingsayer. It's way too general to make anything clear. It's rather the opposite, it causes people to throw together different things on one pile, making it hard to understand what is talked about and for which reason. What did I do in my last post? I came on the thought that central banks and bullion banks may work together to control the gold price 'against' gold speculators. How: by putting myself in their place, and think what I would do. Then I searched for supporting elements for the thought. Some ridiculize / criticize that I post heaps figures, but what is the alternative? In hollywood they tap phones and copy documents and send pigeons and whatever. In reality, there is only data, and you have to find it, interprete it, and lay it all together, as to understand when and how trends relate to eachother and for which reason. And up to now, it's just to recognize remarkable / weird elements as such. Take for ex those big US Mint gold coin sales in 1999-2000. How you know that they are big? By having decades spanning data. Gradually you build up a list of such remarkable / weird elements. Up to a point that you can only conclude that there is more happening than X separate stories. Too much coincidence, ceases to be coincidence. How remarkable is it, 1) that central banks buy gold when its price is high and sell it when it's low? 2) that the big bullion banks are the biggest worldwide operating fiatcurrency banks? 4) that central banks fine these for misleading customers for years and for tampering rates, only after crisis / public raised eyebrows? 5) while these banks nearly have to be exactly those that central banks buy gold from / sell gold to? 6) that the amount dollars in fines sits so close to a profit calculated from annual price averages and individual purchases/sales over a decade? 7) that those so touted about corruption/scandals nearly leave no real term consequences? Take for ex the new silver fixing. The same that negotiated (well ehm ) to a price fix, are the new. They expect more. That's all. Does it even matter whether or not more become such fixing members? Those that speculate on silver, don't know a thing more than with the previous fixing. Even their new terminology is clearly a sought-after "something else than before", it's now given a ridiculous name: "equilibrium auction". If you and me decide to sell/buy a car, then we agree a price, make a contract and we sign. Just imagine that we would name this price agreeing "equilibrium auction". It's just haha. I'm now collecting data since like 2 years. I have a list remarkable things now. Strange coincidences of near-precise equal total amounts based on averages over multiyear periods, exact 1/3 1/2 etc amounts ratios, alike it was actually planned that way. And maybe it just is. Look at the crazy amounts data that central banks collect. The EU's system of central bank and national central banks employed in 2002 already over 50,000 analysts that do all day nothing than gathering data, relaying it to the central bank, where programs or people decide, that relay back orders, that are then passed to those under control. The USA is not different. It's everywhere in the world like that, and the central staffs then do the very same to shape a worldwide planning and control. They have all the ability, and power, to control things in such a far degree. If you lay enough data together, as to climb down in the tree, should it be a surprise to find a tree-trunk?
Update due to additional data. People seem to find data boring so I'll just not give it anymore, it's avail upon request. I collected data for Gold Maples, Krugerrands, Gold Philharmonikers and Libertads and it looks like the further you go away from the US, the less the sales over the 1998-2000 years stand out on the multidecades level. So apparently, in the Y2K theory, people in the US would have concerned alot more than others in the world. That's abit weird. And it brought me to another explanation, so obvious that I should have thought about it earlier: The Washington Agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Agreement_on_Gold Date of signing: 26 September 1999 The first Central Bank Gold Agreement. The introduction of the CBGA's. That looks WAY more plausible than that Y2K explanation, and also explains why the extraordinary gold coin sales centered at the US Mint. And now those UK government sales suddenly are very easily explained, but with a...Catch. This agreement, so called a limit, is 400 tonnes per year for 5 years. This means that, measured over a period of 5 years, the average / year should not exceed 400 tonnes. This "limit", is abit.. funny (hence aboves 'Catch'): Central bank gold sales in tonnes. 1997 326 1998 363 1999 477 <- Washington Agreement on 26 september. 2000 479 + 2001 520 + 2002 547 + 2003 620 + 2004 479 + = 2645 tonnes = 529 per year (bias 1999 Q4) (limit 400 tonnes) 2005 663 2006 365 2007 484 2008 235 +5558 = 463.167/year 2009 34 2010 -77 2011 -455 2012 -544.1 2013 -409.3 Notice how 1997-1998 were "only" 326 and 363 tonnes sold. So that so called "limit", actually INcreased the sales. The figures prove that it was more a MINIMUM TARGET than a LIMIT. It was exceeded with > 25%. And look: after the first 5 years, when the price started to rise alot (2004), one would think that they would sell more (yay more dollars for the gold). Yet, they did the very opposite, they sold less. The sales limit was in 2004 increased to 500, funny since they moved towards net buying instead. And in 2009, it was again lowered to 400 tonnes, plain ridiculous since they closed in on a total sale stop, and started to buy instead. So the anticipation on, and the story afterwards, the Washington Agreement appears like a very plausible explanation here. OMG central banks gonna limit their gold sales. Price is gonna explode! Let's hurry to buy gold coins. Year later, central bank sales figures gradually get reported. OH they sell more instead??? Dang! Let's hurry to sell the gold coins! Which then explains the sudden huge sales drop to an alltime low. So alot people bought gold coins there, at decades record-low prices, to then sell these all again, at prices not much better. year / avg gold price 1997 330.98 1998 294.24 <- peak US Mint gold coin sales. 1999 278.88 <- peak US Mint gold coin sales. 2000 279.11 <- bottom US Mint gold coin sales. 2001 271.04 2002 309.73 2003 363.38 <- only here back to 1997 level The silver sales, where much less outstanding over the decades. Because it was a pure gold centered agreement. Of course some assumed there hehe. We are now 2014. That's end of CGBA3 of 2009 What will their next "Gentlemen Agreement" be, haha? And what will it change? Again nothing? They can now Gentlemen-Agree on another 400 tonnes annual sale limit for the next 5 years. To then move from 400 tonnes purchase back to 400 tonnes sale (=price impact swung 800 tonnes), without breaking any Gentlemen Agreement.
I would also like to know more about how this game works. Let's not forget - most central banks have their bullion holdings at the Fed's vault. And when they sell, the codes identifying the gold bars simply swap ownership. No physical gold is moved. Usually. I think this is how they swap between each other and with bullion banks. I would doubt the fact that the Fed's vault only stores states' reserves. Suppose a state sells Fed-held gold to a bullion bank... The gold remains there, but it becomes the property of the bullion bank. Where does the IMF keep their gold bars? Germany's gold held at the Fed probably got "accidentally" sold, leased, whatever. My guess is: there are several other entities who think they have more gold than they really own. The same piece of metal must have been sold/leased/stolen by multiple entities (states, banks, whatever)...
