I stopped following blogger Dave in Denver when he wimped out of publishing a critical, but civil, comment of mine on his blog. Thankfully my readers persevere with him and have let me know he recently made the following post:
"A reader alerted me to the fact that Bron Suchecki, one of the proprietors of the Perth Mint - the notoriously untrustworthy and fractional bullion account seller - made the claim that there's plenty of 400 oz. gold bullion bars to be had on the world market. This is contrary to every news report and first-hand accounting of shortages that have been presented over the last week.
So I have this question for Bron: If there's plenty of 400 oz. gold bullion LBMA-standard bars available, how come it's taking the United States Government SEVEN YEARS to send just 300 tonnes of the said 400 oz. gold bars that it owes back to the German Government and its citizens? Tell me Bron, if you can find an ample supply of bars, how come the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury can not? How come the Chinese Gold and Silver Exchange Society is now forced to back-order bars from Switzerland? LINK
I rest my case."
Lets cut to the chase. In this Market Watch article, James Turk is quoted saying:
"The problem retail buyers are finding is that the stock of small bars and coins quickly flew off the shelves, so premiums have been rising because the fabricators have not been able to produce enough new supply to meet demand,” said Turk. The situation has benefited GoldMoney because it sells individual interests in large gold bars, he said.
The reason GoldMoney has benefited is because they are able to sell gold without the high premiums that are affecting non-400oz bar retail sized products. One can confirm this by looking at their site for their buy/sell prices.
Here is the problem Dave. If 400oz bars are not so easy to find as you have so emphatically "rested your case", then how can GoldMoney sell its 400oz bar backed product without any premium beyond their normal pricing? They don't seem to have a problem acquiring 400oz bars.
Since you are certain you are right Dave, then the only logical conclusion is that Jame Turk is lying, and that GoldMoney must be running a fractional reserve operation. Personally I think GoldMoney is telling the truth and it is you that is wrong. I look forward to you denouncing James Turk as an untrustworthy and fractional bullion account seller.
I suppose also that Bullion Vault are lying when they say that "we can assure you that the spot price is the price of physical gold and silver in large-bar form right now, just as always. We go on settling physical gold and silver bars daily, picking up real physical bullion and moving it to accredited storage outside the banking world." No problem for them to obtain 400oz bars.
Interesting also that the Sprott Gold Trust, which the Fed or anyone else of size can redeem for physical, has been recently trading around (and below) spot as one can verify from the chart at their Net Asset Value page. Logically, since you are right Dave, the Sprott Gold Trust must be a fraud as well because the reason Fed is not printing money to buy up shares in the Trust and redeeming for physical is because it doesn't have the metal. Such buying action would prevent it from trading at a discount to NAV.
Finally, for those who don't consider me untrustworthy, the Perth Mint is not aware of any premium being paid for the standard 400oz bars. We have heard that 99.99% purity bars are getting a sub-one dollar premium, which makes sense as they can directly melt them down and convert to kilo bars for Asia where 99.99% purity bars are getting a premium. Interestingly, we have confirmed that the bullion banks aren't paying a premium to obtain 99.99% 400oz bars (or 99.50% 400oz bars), which is not indicative of desperation for physical on their part.
Dave seems to think that these facts are contrary to reports of shortage. The reason they aren't is because those reported shortages are for smaller fabricated forms, of which production capacity limitations are a major driver. I have not seen one report of any premium on 400oz bars and Dave doesn't provide one either, just some theory about the Fed and Germany.
The only factual backup for his claim is an article from IB Times which does not mention 400oz bars at all. What is does say is that “The premium on gold in Hong Kong and Singapore is as high as $3 per ounce, an 18-month high.”
While I agree that physical demand has really jumped up quite a bit (see here) if it was really as desperate you make out Dave surely the premium would be much more than just $3 an ounce? It is ironic that the link Dave provides as proof counters his point. It is typical of his shoot first, think later approach.
I think I'll rest my case here and let the reader decide.
With that out of the way, I would like to add my own speculations on the US-Germany redemption issue. I would suggest an alternative possibility, being that Germany does not want to incur expensive shipment costs (and risk) moving such a large amount of metal in a short period of time. It is also possible that they are wanting to obtain the physical via a loco swap, which would also reduce/eliminate shipment costs and risk if it was done advantageously over time. I was going to suggest that Germany may be waiting for leases to mature and then loco swap, but it seems they recently stopped leasing, so that theory is not valid.
The fact is no one knows the reason and my, and Dave's, reasons are both speculation. It is why I consider using a speculation/theory as proof of one's position to be not much of a case.
There is one final thing I am very confused on. You will note Dave refers to me as a proprietor of the Perth Mint. The definition of proprietor is "One who has legal title to something; an owner. One who owns or owns and manages a business or other such establishment."
I thought everyone knew the Perth Mint was government owned. But then this means that Dave doesn't understand the definition of proprietor. Someone commented on this and Dave's response was:
"Yes I know exactly who and what he is, you dingus. I was using the term "proprietor" euphemistically. I guess they haven't gotten to that part of your lesson on Sesame Street."
OK, so Dave knows the Perth Mint is not privately owned, but then the definition of euphemistically is "The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive." As in saying "economic with the truth" instead of "liar". Both say the same thing.
So what exactly is the harsh, blunt or offensive term that has the same meaning as "proprietor"? I am totally at a loss understand what the point/insult is supposed to be. Or is it possible Dave doesn't understand the meaning of euphemistic? Dingus indeed.
FYI, here is MF's interpretation of the Bundesbank move:
Link to FOFOA's blog
Apologies for the bad link. This one worksReplyDelete
I have to take you to task over one aspect of your post.
You write (about Dave),
"...It is typical of his shoot first, think later approach."
You make the assumption that Dave thinks.
I find no evidence in support of that theory.
The rate of around 50 tonnes a year (for the 300 tonne repatriation) is very similar to the earlier proposal to bring back a smaller amount for testing:ReplyDelete
"In the next three years, we will repatriate 50 tonnes of gold annually from New York to Germany. That will give us the opportunity to inspect these bars, melt them down and convert them into “Good Delivery Standard” bars."
Seems likely the speed at which they are repatriating the Gold is set by Bundesbank (perhaps for the reasons Bron lists) rather than a restriction by the Fed because they "don't have the Gold".
Amazing that some investors will believe stories about the Chinese buying 300 tonnes of Gold in 10 days, but refuse to believe the Fed has 300 tonnes to deliver to Germany (or couldn't acquire it in less than 3 years even if they didn't).
I think that the really interesting point in your quote from the Bundesbank is the following:
"That will give us the opportunity to inspect these bars, melt them down and convert them into “Good Delivery Standard” bars."
That implies that the 'sample' 50 tonne annual shipments will NOT be "Good Delivery Standard" bars when they arrive!
If not, are they not likely to be 1930's US gold coin melt?
I have seen rumours that is what at least much of the US Treasury's 'deep storage' gold really is, and the reason that Nixon closed the 'gold window' was because that was all that was left.
Of course, even if true, that would not indicate that there was any shortage of good delivery bars in the LBMA OtC market, only that the US Treasury may not have all that many of them.
In any event, it is clear that, for whatever underlying reasons, Germany was complicit in the agreement to repatriate their 300 tonnes of gold over a seven year period.
Some news report already told no insurer is willing to take the risk of shipping a big load of gold to Germany, so the only choice is ship by small quantity.ReplyDelete
Bron, I want to ask you, an expert, several questions:
1. When we see a 100oz gold bar which is,say, $5 over spot, the $5 is actually the fabrication premium, right?
2. When you buy gold from London, you just pay the spot London? You don't have to pay any premium to spot London if that's 400oz LGD bars, right?
3. When you do a loco swap, say, swap Perth gold for London gold, the cost of the swap is actually the difference between spot loco London and spot loco Perth. Is my understanding correct?
4. If you swap Perth gold for London gold at the start of a loco swap, do you have to unwind the swap at the maturity? That is: you swap London gold for Perth gold at the maturity of the loco swap.
1. Yes, with spot usually being based on loco LondonReplyDelete
2. Yes, there is no premium for 99.5% 400oz bars
4. There is no unwinding. There are only two legs of a loco swap and they are done on the same value date. There is no second swap unwiding - the point of a loco swap is to permanently exchange one loco for another.
I was the person who "Dave in Denver" called a "dingus".
I commented as "anonymous" on his site because I find him obnoxious.
I responded with exactly the same definition of the meaning of euphemistic but he blocked it.
He is one of those petulant spoilt brats who always kick-out when someone catches them out.
He shows, like many metal bloggers, a completely blinkered approach to anything outside his own prejudiced mind-set.
He is also uncouth. I'm glad you responded and put him back in his hole.
Great informative post as always Bron.ReplyDelete
VtC's link is to a great comment he made about he Bundesbank moving 930 tonnes between the two years 2000 and 2001. Not nearly as much has been said about that revelation than the recent 50 tonnes per year announcement.
In 2001 prices, say 300 $ per ounce, the currency value of 930/2 tonnes per year differs by a factor of two compared to today's 50 tonnes per year @ ~1500 $ per ounce.
I'm wondering if maybe the amount they are moving per year is dictated more by the dollar value rather than the metal weight?
Maybe they face some constraint in the dollar amount, e.g. Bron's speculation about insurance above.
It's fun to speculate.
Above is VtC attributing to MF.
I would like to add my own speculations on the US-Germany redemption issue. Security has to be a big concern transferring this from one side of the world to the other. Sure banks can exchange currencies digitally quite easily but gold is physical and requires guards, ships, planes and trucks. If we don't tell anyone that it's in transit now then it is safer. Only a fool would advertise details of an operation like this. Maybe they will do it in ten shipments and after the last shipment is complete then they'll tell us that the transfer has been done. steve bReplyDelete
"...that Germany does not want to incur expensive shipment costs (and risk) moving such a large amount of metal in a short period of time."ReplyDelete
Sorry, I am new here - is this a joke?
I just about fell out of my seat laughing at the speculation that Germany doesn't want its physical gold bullion back because it doesn't want to incur large shipping costs? That is a whole different level of odd entirely, and frankly is an incompetent excuse and the fact that men in the know would even stoop to such a garbage excuse speaks volumes about where we are in this entire ordeal to begin with. This is just lame and inadequate.ReplyDelete
I never said Germany doesn't want its gold back, just speculated on why they are spreading it out.ReplyDelete
You should consider that Germany trusts the Fed hence they are not desperate to get the gold back as that will cost more than doing it over time. Germany's repatriation is driven by political agitation, not because they don't trust the US.
Internal political agitation, that is. I see the Germany repatriation as a populist way to appease domestic voters.ReplyDelete
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but I'd like to understand your stance on this with more clarity.
I never said Germany doesn't want its gold back, just speculated on why they are spreading it out.
Bron, are you inferring that Germany is spreading out the timeframe? Not the US? I presume you are considering this as, from yoiur professional knowledge, that there is no shortage of Gold. Correct?
You should consider that Germany trusts the Fed
So why ask for it back at all? if this is true? Because:
populist way to appease domestic voters
How in the world is a 7 year repatriation appeasing voters? 6-9 months would seem a, more, reasonable delay. 7 Years? If I was a German voter who considered this a pressing political issue - I'd feel like 7 years may as well be 100. This doesn't make much sense to me. How do you compare this timeframe to Venezuela's, albeit smaller, repatriation?
...not desperate to get the gold back as that will cost more than doing it over time
How would it cost more doing it now (expediantly) as opposed to later? Are shipping/oil/transportation/security costs going to come down over time? When you are talking about returning your property of something worth Billions - I wouldn't expect 'shipping' (presumably a fraction of that value) to be a consideration....and I certainly don't see it costing less next year or in 5 years than it does tomorrow. LOL - Are they speculating oil prices will come down or something? On a personal level it would be like - my pre-order of 100 Gold Eagles is in at the coin store the next town over (an hour drive) and I am waiting for gas to drop a few pennies before I decide to go.
As for security - how about spread over 10 planes and 12 ships (I keep thinking a handful of battleships).
"...that Germany does not want to incur expensive shipment costs (and risk) moving such a large amount of metal in a short period of time."
What is 'a short period of time'? A month? and what is 'expensive' - what fraction of the total value would be considered exhorbitant? 1/250,000th?
Personally, if to get back something I own - I wouldn't blink if it costs even 1/100,000th of its value in shipping/security. But that's just me.
The other issues is how this 7-year time frame looks. What message is this giving 'the general populace'? If you wanted to politically appease them - wouldn't you do it in 'your' political term of office? Don't you think that the average Joe would consider the 7-year time frame unreasonable? and you still feel this is 'appeasing'? In my mind it is doing the opposite. I'm not even German and I am uncomfortable with the timeframe. I can't imagine how they feel. I can see many gut-reactions as believing that the US does not have the Gold. I'm not saying that is true - but I can apprciate that is what some will believe who don't have your knowledge of extensive physical gold surpluses.
German citizens: "We have been demanding this for years now. With the current level of global financial instability - we demand our Gold returned to our country!"
German Government: "The soonest we could do it is next month on the 14th, but we are busy then so June 12th, 2020 is the next earliest date. Are you okay with this?"
If you were in their shoes Bron, would you be okay with this?
My guess is there are a handful of people who know *why* Germany is repatriating 50T gold/year.ReplyDelete
Pretty sure none of them post on the interwebz why (at least not since 2001).
What milamber said. However, I think Bron's speculations are among the most interesting out there, and certainly not a joke.ReplyDelete
handful of people who know *why* Germany is repatriating 50T gold/yearReplyDelete
So are you are disgreeing with Bron that it is for political appeasement. Surely if it only representes a small fraction who know why - what would be the reason NOT to announce that it is because of shipment costs and security? - as Bron surmises.
That would seem easy to exaplain. No? Ex.
German Government: "Like Venezuela, yes - we have begun the process to repatriate our physical Gold - but due to the immense cost and high level of security required - we will be doing it over a longer timeframe".
Simple. Has anyone said that? Hmmm... I wonder why not? It might be politically appeasing to do so. No?
Perhaps they will do so next week... What do you think?
I guess shrouding this 7-year time frame in mystery simply raises more doubts and questions. If it is as simple an explanation as Bron's theory (immense cost and high level of security required) why not simply say that? Bron, how about a theory on why they don't just say 'why'? - your explanation doesn't sound particularily conspiratorial.
I know. Let me guess. Perhaps because they trust the Fed sooo much that it would be wasteful to spend the time to write an explanation. A total unecessary waste of a press-writers valuable time. The trust is so ingrained they don't even require transparency. Huh? It's only X Billion. Okay. Got it.
They are bringing back the gold as political appeasement and NOT explaining the 7-year time frame because that is wasteful to do so. Heck, they must be busy. Have I got this right, Bron?
Since you wanted to cloak yourself in 'James Turk', I was wondering what you thought of this interview posted today?
Shortages are developing not just in small gold and silver denominations but in the large bars that are the bulk of the monetary metals trade, 400-ounce gold bars and thousand-ounce silver bars, GoldMoney founder and GATA consultant James Turk tells King World News today.
Perhaps you'd like to take your arm off Turks shoulder's now. No?
My own theory on the 7-year time frame is....
That is is one of the few solutions to stem a global Gold bank run... on the US.
Venezuela and a handful of smaller countries is one thing - but Germany? This could start a global trend (read 'panic').
1) If you say 'No' you can't have it - it exacerbates the panic/run.
2) If you agree and say 'yes' with immediate delivery - what is to stop others requesting the same treatment and expediency.
So, what is left?
3) Yes but over a long time.
Sure, you other countries, line-up and get yours - but as you see we are so trustworthy that it can be done over years... we can't give it to you quickly when it takes Germany 7 years.
I am saying that it is my OPINION "official" gold purchases/sales happen for reasons other than price & they happen "where noone can see".
That opinion is greatly influenced by what Another wrote back in the 90's.
Date: Fri Dec 12 1997 23:08
ANOTHER (THOUGHTS!) ID#60253:
You will not see 80% or more of gold deals. If it was done with all to see the discount value would be lost as the world price would explode. This is not the relm of any public “wall street”. At one time it belonged mostly to the Barron. Now it is large with the BIS and super rich. Wars will be fought over the lack of “visibility” of these dealings.
With that said, I value (and carefully read & consider) Bron's writings, as I view him as an authority on the gold market.
I am saying that it is my OPINION "official" gold purchases/sales happen for reasons other than price & they happen "where noone can see".ReplyDelete
I am 100% in agreement with you.... and Another.
With that said, I value (and carefully read & consider) Bron's writings, as I view him as an authority on the gold market
I will take that into consideration. I hope this does not mean that I cannot question his logic and theories. I thought this would be one way of coming to the truth, no? or at least allow me to learn.
If Bron had stated that the Germany Gold repatriation timeframe decision was 'unknowable' at this time. I would have agreed with him. To state a theory that it is due to shipment costs and security frankly, makes me question his validity. I hope I am allowed to, respectfully, state as much - perhaps any future answers from him can set me straight. I am only seeking the truth and shipment costs and security sounds more like an excuse than the truth. IMO. I would be surprised if he, or anyone believes it to be a valid reason.
"If Bron had stated that the Germany Gold repatriation timeframe decision was 'unknowable' at this time. I would have agreed with him"
and yet in this very thread which you are commenting on, Bron wrote:
"The fact is no one knows the reason and my, and Dave's, reasons are both speculation. It is why I consider using a speculation/theory as proof of one's position to be not much of a case."
note: "no one knows" vs what you wanted: "unknowable".
Bron was simply offering up one of a plethora of possible explanations that the Goldtards never even consider.
as for Turk - I think Bron deliberately quoted Turk to boggle the Goldbugs' minds, as they'll be confused how one of "their own" can be saying such a thing.
but I'll answer your follow up - Turk is full of it if he thinks that LBMA good delivery gold and silver bars aren't available at spot right now (which of course, isn't exactly what he said in the quote you excerpted.)
what Turk said is that there are "shortages developing".. I don't know what kind of jedi-mind magic that is supposed to be, but as Bron noted in this post, Turk can get all the London Good bars he wants from GLD, SLV, PHYS and PSLV... all at or below spot.
I think this Germany repatriation needs its own post.ReplyDelete
Re Turk, that is an interesting statement and given we have heard of premiums on 9999 400oz bars it is possible it could extend to 9950 400oz bars but so far Perth Mint isn't seeing it.
Anyway, talk is cheap. If 9950 400oz bars are in shortage then this is a problem for GoldMoney as they can't sell (and make money) their product if they can't get the bars to back it. So they should therefore be willing to pay a premium to obtain them and pass that premium on to their clients. This will show up as their selling prices being above spot (excluding their normal fees) but also we should see their buyback prices going up above spot.
My understanding is GM buyback at "spot" with no fees and sell at their "spot" plus a known fee (stated aim to be transparent about the spread, which I commend) so it should be easy to see if their spot is significantly above other reported spot prices.
I don't have an automatic crawler to pull their spot prices and compare to wholesale spot but if anyone has been watching their pricing closely please let me know if you have seen/do see a change in their spot price.
I simply disputed Bron's statement:
"...that Germany does not want to incur expensive shipment costs (and risk) moving such a large amount of metal in a short period of time."
I'm not buying it for the reasons I discussed. I didn't want to rattle some feathers - I just found that particular explanation out of the realm of possibility - maybe he can inform me of why I should consider it as having some validity. I'll try to keep my mind open.
as I do this one:
"In the next three years, we will repatriate 50 tonnes of gold annually from New York to Germany. That will give us the opportunity to inspect these bars, melt them down and convert them into “Good Delivery Standard” bars"
A year to melt down 50 tonnes of gold? what are they using a campfire?
Anyway, it smells pretty fishy, IMO - and 'Another' is spot-on. I guess I'll stick to my own guesses.
I do find it amusing that Bron says:
GoldMoney sell its 400oz bar backed product without any premium beyond their normal pricing? They don't seem to have a problem acquiring 400oz bars..... Since you are certain you are right Dave, then the only logical conclusion is that James Turk is lying, and that GoldMoney must be running a fractional reserve operation. Personally I think GoldMoney is telling the truth and it is you that is wrong
and when Turk says, one day later:
Shortages are developing not just in small gold and silver denominations but in the large bars that are the bulk of the monetary metals trade, 400-ounce gold bars and...
and you say:
but I'll answer your follow up - Turk is full of it...
You may be right KD - his use of language is... less-specific, but I do find it amusing... thanks everyone - I didn't mean to be an a**hole. :).
Gary, just read the Turk KWN interview and what he says is "Although this market for large bars is not transparent, there are signs right now that the demand for large bars is exceeding supply."ReplyDelete
Only talks about signs, and then offers a slight backwardation in COMEX and COMEX stock drawdowns as proof.
What I want to hear is someone saying BBs will not supply 9950 400oz bars at spot and you have to pay a premium.
Turk is not saying that, he is not saying GoldMoney is having difficultly getting 400oz bars and is paying a premium.
You said Germany seems to have stopped leasing recently. Is this information available to the public? I'm looking for any official data on Central Banks and gold lending/leasing or if they had stopped in the past decade.
I am wondering if the ‘seven years to send 300T’ announcement is just a smoke screen which both the FED and the Germany officials agreed to announce. The circumstances of the actual delivery are probably different. I’m not suggesting the US has the metal available - just wondering if the 7 years was considered a sufficient period of time to indicate that Germany wasn’t too worried about the issue.
After all it wouldn’t help Germany’s chances of getting their metal if they made any announcement which suggested tightness in the gold market. Also even if the US could supply the metal immediately (perhaps highly unlikely) and they were doing this ‘on the quiet’ then the 7 years announcement could be used to convey to the public that ‘gold really isn’t a big deal’, that Germany wasn’t too concerned about it etc, to try and manage the public perceptions and avoid throwing petrol on the gold demand fire.
Public confidence is everything and the major western central banks know they can’t say anything to which would put at risk the confidence in fiat currency.
Bron, 2 newbie questions. I wish you could answer them.ReplyDelete
1. Suppose I'm an institutional client who has an unallocated gold account with a bullion bank in London. I want to withdraw my gold. We know that in order to withdraw the gold, the bullion bank has to allocate it first. The question is: Will the bullion bank charge me for allocation?
2. Suppose I have 100,000 fine troy ounces of gold on my unallocated account. The bullion bank allocates the gold. We know that's 250 standard LGD bars. However, we can seldom see bars that are exactly 400 fine troy ounces. If the 250 bars are altogether 99,991 fine troy ounces, how does the bullion bank deal with the difference of 9 fine troy ounces?
"I hope this does not mean that I cannot question his logic and theories."
Well it is Bron's blog, so he ultimately decides what gets posted here. But with that being said, if he were to not allow you to "question his logic and theories", it would be the 1st time I have ever seen him do that.So, I find it very doubtful that he would do that.I was certainly not suggesting that one cannot question his logic & theories.
Now, with that said, I found your questions to be very good questions. I don't think that "shipment costs & security" are the reasons why this 50T/year announcement was made. I think that there is another reason that guides these moves. And it is also the reason gold is the only commodity that still sits on CB balance sheets.
And I don't think it is because of tradition.
re shipping and insurance. This didn't prevent them from airlifting 950 tonnes from London to Frankfurt in 2000 and 2001. They did not disclose this fact for ten years.
Now they make a (for a central bank) noisy public announcement about 50 tonnes per year for 7 years, and at the same time publish this:
The only interpretation that I find consistent with these observations is MF's quoted at the very beginning of this discussion.
Someone doubted that the Bundesbank have the balls to relocate their gold home from New York.ReplyDelete
Just in order to complete your picture a little bit, take a look at Figure 11 in this article. You see a huge outflow of gold from the UK in their import/export statistics - ironically, the raw data were compiled by none other than Turk.
This must have been when China allocated their paper gold, Big Trader started writing at Kitco, LBMA went public with their trading volume (threatening the Western CBs with a too big to fail situation), and then the Arabs panicked and took a substantial amount to Switzerland.
In this situation, as you can see from the above Bundesbank documents, the Bundesbank converted about 700 tonnes of swaps and unallocated positions into allocated in that very same year. I don't think they made many friends in London and Washington with this move.
Just to make sure my previous posting is not misunderstood: Should the US government ever piss off the Bundesbank, they can sell their dollar reserves and buy gold in the market. The Bundesbank made clear around 1996 to 1999 that they don't care if Gordon Brown had to sell some of the British gold in order to rescue the banks. The possibility alone (of dumping dollars and purchasing gold in the market) makes sure that the US government will properly safeguard the German gold and honour the custodial agreements.
See http://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Standardartikel/Bundesbank/Wissenswert/historisches_gold_historischer_ueberblick.html or you could just subscribe to Sharelynx.com which has some nice charts of the change in their holdings over time http://www.sharelynx.com/gold/BundesbankReserves.php
"Will the bullion bank charge me for allocation?"ReplyDelete
There will be no premium charged but possibly a small handling fee.
"how does the bullion bank deal with the difference of 9 fine troy ounces?"
The question is what do you want to do with your 9 ounces? You either keep it as unallocated or sell it for cash.
In all this discussion, please think practically about moving large quantities of gold. Brinks truck might be able to take 3 tonnes per trip. Flights, while they could carry a lot of tonnes, will not be insured by anyone for more than a few hundred million.ReplyDelete
That (both points) make excellent sense to me.
As best as I can tell, no one really has a firm grasp on what is really going on with gold. Their reading the tea leaves and guessing.ReplyDelete
It would be great if everyone would stop fussing at each other and just state what they know(fact) and then clearly offer their opinion.
There is more at stake here then just an investment, western civilization may be teetering on this issue.
Bron, can you do a post on quality swap? Many thanks.ReplyDelete