Showing posts with label banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banking. Show all posts
Friday, March 10, 2017
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Saturday, June 29, 2013
The Difference Between Banking and Custody
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BANKING AND CUSTODY
As a client of AFE, it is absolutely imperative that you understand this critical difference between banking and custody. For many years, the terms in use in the storage industry have been the subject of much writing and analysis, yet I still find it to be the least understood aspect of precious metals ownership, particularly for the retail investor.
I have seen many articles over the years which point out that no matter what, if you are going to store metals with any entity besides yourself, make sure you do it using “allocated storage.” While this is great advice, it does not address the legal issues of banking versus custody. This is where the whole if-you-get-allocated-you-are-safe idea has come to play, but it is a dangerous safety blanket.
The term "allocated" is used to describe a situation where a storage provider can identify both by inventory, serial number, manufacturer, and weight an exact bar or bars owned by a particular investor or institution. If needed, they can walk to it in a vault and identify it by sight.
From time to time I have seen it recommended that you only store metal in allocated storage but outside of the banking system. The question is, "Why?"
After reading much of the commentary surrounding this subject, I have come to the conclusion that many who write about it don’t really understand why to hold it outside of a bank either. They have assumed that if it is allocated, even with a bank, it is somehow safe from loss.
Recently in Cyprus, the two largest banks were on the verge of insolvency. After multiple rounds of hardball negotiations with the ECB, Cyprus agreed to confiscate depositor funds to help recapitalize the banks calling it a “bail-in” instead of a “bailout.” If it did not do this, Cyprus would have had its credit lines cut and banks fail causing a complete collapse of the Cyprus banking system. Following these events, stories have broken that virtually every country on the planet is in various stages of implementing the legal and systemic requirements to do the same thing should banks in their jurisdictions fail.
The idea that any depositor of a bank is considered a creditor, and even an investor, is being accepted among central bankers and governments as the policy to follow in the event of future bank failures. This means that as a depositor, you are actually an investor in that bank. If it fails, you as an investor could lose the entirety of your deposits. The legal basis for this is that your bank is paying you interest, which can be argued this makes you an investor since your capital is put at risk. In return for this risk, the bank offers you a profit. If a bank fails/goes insolvent/bankrupt, your “property” held by that bank is considered part of that bank's balance sheet and assets. In other words, it is no longer your property as far as a court sees it; it is able to be used to satisfy the recapitalization of that bank.
If you have allocated storage with a bank, pay close attention to the details of the contract. Always bear in mind that even if a court recognizes that the gold or silver belongs to you, it does not mean you will have access to it if a bank’s assets are frozen during a crisis. The confusion arises because most people have incorrectly assumed that banks are acting on the same legal basis as a custodian, which is simply not true and never has been. The moment you signed your agreement with the bank for your account, you were no longer the owner. Be careful here, as most agreements with financial services providers, including broker dealers, operate the exact same way.
Legally this is critically different to a custodial arrangement with a private custodial agent such as AFE. In a custodial arrangement, you are working with a private party, not a bank, to temporarily safeguard your property. An example of this is when you give your car to a mechanic for repairs. The car does not become the mechanic's property, and it is not added to his balance sheet. He is a temporary custodian of it. If his auto repair company happened to go out of business while he had custody of your car, the court could not declare your car as property of the mechanic to be used to recapitalize his business or satisfy his creditors. The same goes for when you ship something by Federal Express or other well-known courier. They don’t become the owner of what you are shipping; they are a temporary custodian of it and release responsibility for that custody the moment the receiving party signs for it.
This is not some mysterious new legal concept; its history goes back thousands of years. Warehousing has been called the “second oldest profession,” stemming from the biblical story of Joseph who stored grain during the seven good years against the famine of the seven bad years. In custody, the legal concept is called “bailment.” (There is a plethora of information about how it works easily available to anyone who has access to Google.) Without it, goods could never be stored, warehouses would be out of business, and all of commerce globally from manufacturer to end buyer would come to a screeching halt.
Even the American IRS acknowledges the difference between a financial account and privately-owned gold in private custody:
Q20. I directly hold precious metals for investment, such as gold, in a foreign country. Do I need to report these assets on Form 8938? (IRS Basic Questions)
No. Directly held precious metals, such as gold, are not specified as foreign financial assets. Note, however, that gold certificates issued by a foreign person may be a specified foreign financial asset you would have to report on Form 8938 if the total value of all your specified foreign financial assets is greater than the reporting threshold that applies to you.
It is important that your custodian not provide “banking,” not offer interest on gold in its custody, and not engage in the business of placing its client’s assets at financial risk for returns. By contrast, these are by nature the standard daily business practices of the banks you hold your cash (and gold?) with. Private custody agents such as AFE are only a custodial agent and not a financial services provider or bank, which means the gold is never added to the custody agent’s balance sheets, never becomes the custody agent’s property, and in the event of the custody agent’s demise, cannot be claimed by a court to be used for the custody agent’s recapitalization or to pay off its creditors.
FRIGHTENED BANKERS AND MORE FRIGHTENING GOVERNMENT
So the recent story goes, a wealthy gentleman, who was a friend of a well-known precious metals commentator, had gold held in "allocated storage" with a Swiss bank. The precious metals commentator was a professional in terms of trading gold, but an expert (not a professional) in gold custody. The wealthy gentleman asked the bank to give him physical delivery of the metal, but the bankers refused to do so. The assumption is made that the gold simply isn’t there, allocated storage is bogus, and thus you must store it yourself. Trust no one!
This is a dangerous assumption. Based on AFE's professional knowledge of the subject, it is most likely not only incorrect, but could cause great harm to a precious metals investor who really needs the services that private custodial agents provide but is influenced against it by someone who does not fully understand the difference between banking and custody. As I mentioned before, most wealthy and institutional investors have resources to recognize this difference by hiring professional legal counsel with experience in law pertaining to bailment as well as across jurisdictions. Most retail investors do not.
We recently had an inquiry from a USA domiciled billionaire who was holding tens of millions of USD worth of silver in a recognized Swiss bank, whom we shall not name. He was informed by that bank, as have many other US clients been informed, that he had until January 1, 2013, to figure out what to do with it as the bank was closing the relationship. The billionaire wanted to have AFE take delivery of his metal and assume custody. We have received many similar calls since this process has been driven all through the banking sector in Switzerland in anticipation of having to comply with FATCA. Anglo Far-East did a great deal of work in terms of offering options and solutions, even going so far as to accept a metal transfer directly with our refinery accounts which this bank also has an account with. At the end of the day, the bank did not want to transfer the metal but preferred to cash the client out. Here is the interesting part, and this comes from direct conversations with Swiss Bankers. In Switzerland right now, every banker is in fear of being charged by the US Government at some later date with terrorism or some bogus financial crime and apprehended as he travels through the US, for example while on vacation to Disneyland with his family, only to be locked away for the rest of his life and maybe tortured or who knows what else.
AFE METAL IS NOT PURCHASED THROUGH BANKS
AFE METAL IS NOT VAULTED WITH BANKS
AFE METAL IS NOT SOLD THROUGH BANKS
As a client of AFE, it is absolutely imperative that you understand this critical difference between banking and custody. For many years, the terms in use in the storage industry have been the subject of much writing and analysis, yet I still find it to be the least understood aspect of precious metals ownership, particularly for the retail investor.
I have seen many articles over the years which point out that no matter what, if you are going to store metals with any entity besides yourself, make sure you do it using “allocated storage.” While this is great advice, it does not address the legal issues of banking versus custody. This is where the whole if-you-get-allocated-you-are-safe idea has come to play, but it is a dangerous safety blanket.
The term "allocated" is used to describe a situation where a storage provider can identify both by inventory, serial number, manufacturer, and weight an exact bar or bars owned by a particular investor or institution. If needed, they can walk to it in a vault and identify it by sight.
From time to time I have seen it recommended that you only store metal in allocated storage but outside of the banking system. The question is, "Why?"
After reading much of the commentary surrounding this subject, I have come to the conclusion that many who write about it don’t really understand why to hold it outside of a bank either. They have assumed that if it is allocated, even with a bank, it is somehow safe from loss.
Recently in Cyprus, the two largest banks were on the verge of insolvency. After multiple rounds of hardball negotiations with the ECB, Cyprus agreed to confiscate depositor funds to help recapitalize the banks calling it a “bail-in” instead of a “bailout.” If it did not do this, Cyprus would have had its credit lines cut and banks fail causing a complete collapse of the Cyprus banking system. Following these events, stories have broken that virtually every country on the planet is in various stages of implementing the legal and systemic requirements to do the same thing should banks in their jurisdictions fail.
The idea that any depositor of a bank is considered a creditor, and even an investor, is being accepted among central bankers and governments as the policy to follow in the event of future bank failures. This means that as a depositor, you are actually an investor in that bank. If it fails, you as an investor could lose the entirety of your deposits. The legal basis for this is that your bank is paying you interest, which can be argued this makes you an investor since your capital is put at risk. In return for this risk, the bank offers you a profit. If a bank fails/goes insolvent/bankrupt, your “property” held by that bank is considered part of that bank's balance sheet and assets. In other words, it is no longer your property as far as a court sees it; it is able to be used to satisfy the recapitalization of that bank.
If you have allocated storage with a bank, pay close attention to the details of the contract. Always bear in mind that even if a court recognizes that the gold or silver belongs to you, it does not mean you will have access to it if a bank’s assets are frozen during a crisis. The confusion arises because most people have incorrectly assumed that banks are acting on the same legal basis as a custodian, which is simply not true and never has been. The moment you signed your agreement with the bank for your account, you were no longer the owner. Be careful here, as most agreements with financial services providers, including broker dealers, operate the exact same way.
Legally this is critically different to a custodial arrangement with a private custodial agent such as AFE. In a custodial arrangement, you are working with a private party, not a bank, to temporarily safeguard your property. An example of this is when you give your car to a mechanic for repairs. The car does not become the mechanic's property, and it is not added to his balance sheet. He is a temporary custodian of it. If his auto repair company happened to go out of business while he had custody of your car, the court could not declare your car as property of the mechanic to be used to recapitalize his business or satisfy his creditors. The same goes for when you ship something by Federal Express or other well-known courier. They don’t become the owner of what you are shipping; they are a temporary custodian of it and release responsibility for that custody the moment the receiving party signs for it.
This is not some mysterious new legal concept; its history goes back thousands of years. Warehousing has been called the “second oldest profession,” stemming from the biblical story of Joseph who stored grain during the seven good years against the famine of the seven bad years. In custody, the legal concept is called “bailment.” (There is a plethora of information about how it works easily available to anyone who has access to Google.) Without it, goods could never be stored, warehouses would be out of business, and all of commerce globally from manufacturer to end buyer would come to a screeching halt.
Even the American IRS acknowledges the difference between a financial account and privately-owned gold in private custody:
Q20. I directly hold precious metals for investment, such as gold, in a foreign country. Do I need to report these assets on Form 8938? (IRS Basic Questions)
No. Directly held precious metals, such as gold, are not specified as foreign financial assets. Note, however, that gold certificates issued by a foreign person may be a specified foreign financial asset you would have to report on Form 8938 if the total value of all your specified foreign financial assets is greater than the reporting threshold that applies to you.
It is important that your custodian not provide “banking,” not offer interest on gold in its custody, and not engage in the business of placing its client’s assets at financial risk for returns. By contrast, these are by nature the standard daily business practices of the banks you hold your cash (and gold?) with. Private custody agents such as AFE are only a custodial agent and not a financial services provider or bank, which means the gold is never added to the custody agent’s balance sheets, never becomes the custody agent’s property, and in the event of the custody agent’s demise, cannot be claimed by a court to be used for the custody agent’s recapitalization or to pay off its creditors.
FRIGHTENED BANKERS AND MORE FRIGHTENING GOVERNMENT
So the recent story goes, a wealthy gentleman, who was a friend of a well-known precious metals commentator, had gold held in "allocated storage" with a Swiss bank. The precious metals commentator was a professional in terms of trading gold, but an expert (not a professional) in gold custody. The wealthy gentleman asked the bank to give him physical delivery of the metal, but the bankers refused to do so. The assumption is made that the gold simply isn’t there, allocated storage is bogus, and thus you must store it yourself. Trust no one!
This is a dangerous assumption. Based on AFE's professional knowledge of the subject, it is most likely not only incorrect, but could cause great harm to a precious metals investor who really needs the services that private custodial agents provide but is influenced against it by someone who does not fully understand the difference between banking and custody. As I mentioned before, most wealthy and institutional investors have resources to recognize this difference by hiring professional legal counsel with experience in law pertaining to bailment as well as across jurisdictions. Most retail investors do not.
We recently had an inquiry from a USA domiciled billionaire who was holding tens of millions of USD worth of silver in a recognized Swiss bank, whom we shall not name. He was informed by that bank, as have many other US clients been informed, that he had until January 1, 2013, to figure out what to do with it as the bank was closing the relationship. The billionaire wanted to have AFE take delivery of his metal and assume custody. We have received many similar calls since this process has been driven all through the banking sector in Switzerland in anticipation of having to comply with FATCA. Anglo Far-East did a great deal of work in terms of offering options and solutions, even going so far as to accept a metal transfer directly with our refinery accounts which this bank also has an account with. At the end of the day, the bank did not want to transfer the metal but preferred to cash the client out. Here is the interesting part, and this comes from direct conversations with Swiss Bankers. In Switzerland right now, every banker is in fear of being charged by the US Government at some later date with terrorism or some bogus financial crime and apprehended as he travels through the US, for example while on vacation to Disneyland with his family, only to be locked away for the rest of his life and maybe tortured or who knows what else.
AFE METAL IS NOT PURCHASED THROUGH BANKS
AFE METAL IS NOT VAULTED WITH BANKS
AFE METAL IS NOT SOLD THROUGH BANKS
It
very well may be that it is not so much that the metal isn’t there for
delivery (we believe it is), but it’s that no banker in Switzerland is
willing to sign his name on transfer documentation for a US person that
may be used to charge them with a crime. This applies to an individual
banker's name on something that has to do with a US citizen and nothing to do with confiscation or other issues in regards to private gold ownership in Switzerland.
This brings me back to a very important point of why it is imperative to vault outside of banks. Not only could your property be potentially caught up in a bank recapitalization or failure, but the people who operate there are subject to banking regulation. Conversely, private property is a completely different animal falling under Swiss private property laws that are not regulated in Switzerland the same way as the banks are. Bankers in Switzerland and many other nations have to deal with potential ramifications of anything they sign off on, and everything they do is scrutinized by a government authority.
All of AFE’s operations in Switzerland fall under Swiss private property laws and do not touch the banking system or banking regulation.
In conclusion, be careful what you assume to be the reality of any market commentary you hear. There are different perspectives that may improve the quality of your decision making. With your wealth protection planning, be careful of and understand the specific viewpoint of any commentator, be they an Academic, an Expert, or a Professional, and weigh this into your discernment of what they are saying.
This brings me back to a very important point of why it is imperative to vault outside of banks. Not only could your property be potentially caught up in a bank recapitalization or failure, but the people who operate there are subject to banking regulation. Conversely, private property is a completely different animal falling under Swiss private property laws that are not regulated in Switzerland the same way as the banks are. Bankers in Switzerland and many other nations have to deal with potential ramifications of anything they sign off on, and everything they do is scrutinized by a government authority.
All of AFE’s operations in Switzerland fall under Swiss private property laws and do not touch the banking system or banking regulation.
In conclusion, be careful what you assume to be the reality of any market commentary you hear. There are different perspectives that may improve the quality of your decision making. With your wealth protection planning, be careful of and understand the specific viewpoint of any commentator, be they an Academic, an Expert, or a Professional, and weigh this into your discernment of what they are saying.
- Alex Stanczyk
Labels:
banking,
between,
custody,
difference
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Expats renouncing US citizenship
Expatriates renouncing their US citizenship will be a growing trend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html?hp
Amid mounting frustration over taxation and banking problems, small but growing numbers of overseas Americans are taking the weighty step of renouncing their citizenship.
Anecdotally, frustrations over tax and banking questions, not political considerations, appear to be the main drivers of the surge. Expat advocates say that as it becomes more difficult for Americans to live and work abroad, it will become harder for American companies to compete.
American expats have long complained that the United States is the only industrialized country to tax citizens on income earned abroad, even when they are taxed in their country of residence, though they are allowed to exclude their first $91,400 in foreign-earned income.
Labels:
banking,
expatriates,
regulation,
renunciation,
taxation,
US citizenship
Friday, October 9, 2009
Government bureaucracy
From Ross R., a reader of Doug Casey's newsletter:
Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the Department of Energy.... during the Carter Administration? Anybody? No?
Didn't think so! Ready??
It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977… to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
And now it’s 2009 – 32 years later – and the budget for this “necessary” department is at $24.2 billion a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees. And look at the job they have done!
Good ole bureaucracy.
And now we are going to turn the banking system, healthcare, and the auto industry over to the same government?
Labels:
auto,
banking,
Department of Energy,
government,
healthcare,
Jimmy Carter
Friday, February 6, 2009
Jack Welch
Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, knows a thing or two about business. This morning, he commented on the stimulus bill proposed before the Senate for passage:
1) the bill should include components to CREATE jobs, not SAVE jobs.
2) the bill should address resuscitate the banking industry which is on cardiac arrest
3) the proposed bill is addressing the wrong priorities. He made an interesting comparison of the cardiac patient needing blood to flow through his body; yet, the bill proposes purchasing the patient a pair of shoes and a suit.
I think that is an apt metaphor. I believe the current bill does not include enough investment in infrastructure, and too much pent up pork--which will clog the arteries of the patient.
1) the bill should include components to CREATE jobs, not SAVE jobs.
2) the bill should address resuscitate the banking industry which is on cardiac arrest
3) the proposed bill is addressing the wrong priorities. He made an interesting comparison of the cardiac patient needing blood to flow through his body; yet, the bill proposes purchasing the patient a pair of shoes and a suit.
I think that is an apt metaphor. I believe the current bill does not include enough investment in infrastructure, and too much pent up pork--which will clog the arteries of the patient.
Labels:
banking,
General Electric,
infrastructure,
Jack Welch,
jobs,
pork,
stimulus
Friday, December 5, 2008
The return of the gold standard? Why gold is poised to explode...
Blue-collar, white-collar, manufacturing, services, etc.---it doesn't matter what type of jobs--the more the merrier, altho it would be nice to have higher-skilled job growth.
If you think about it, who invented the internet? (No, it wasn't Al Gore). It was a British scientist educated in Switzerland (or it was a Swiss educated in the UK). But as far as monetizing the technology, most of the $$ were generated here, as well as accompanying technologies and services. It's okay to be a consumer-oriented economy, as long innovation continues domestically.
I think that's what dawg was sarcastically inferring--we can't go backwards.
To be honest, the only way we go back to real economic growth--without inflation and the abuse of leverage, is to go back to the gold standard. History has shown time again that when sovereign governments abandon gold-backed currencies, paralyzing hyperinflation becomes the unintended consequence down the road. With fiat currencies, central banks are permitted to print money unjudiciously--most of the time to try to dampen deep recessions (sounds familiar?). Deflation and avoidance of The Great Depression category 5 is the concern du jour, but the Coming to Jesus day will arrive soon enough, and we will all pay for these bailouts, literally with higher taxes and a higher cost of living (and accompanying lower standard of living).
Think about it: with our reserve banking system, a 20% run on demand deposits would make every single one of our major banks insolvent. This is not just a mortgage crisis, a credit crisis, etc.--it's a crisis of confidence. And with flimsy fiat, finance-based economies, confidence is everything (since there is no gold backing up the currency).
Of course, resetting of a new gold standard would mean a level of around $1500/ounce, which would cut everybody's cash accounts in half, but that's what it would take. It happened in the early 30's, when FDR declared gold would be set at $35/oz, instead of the previous $20/oz. The federal government then went on to confiscate all individually held gold (with the exception of wedding rings), or citizens risked 10 years of prison and a $10,000 fine. All that gold is now at Fort Knox. This was due to the profligate Treasury printing presses during the easy money 20's, which in turn caused the Great Depression of the 30's. (See any parallels?).
I could go on and on about what's going on with the currency and gold markets right now, with the manipulation and placating of short-sellers, but I'll summarize with this: if JP Morgan and Citibank are openly predicting $1500/oz gold for next year, and if they are accumulating gold bullion as we speak (as are Dubai, Saudi and Chinese governments), then why are they selling short gold? Could it be they want to keep its price artificially low, in order to boost their purchases? Thing is, it's a dangerous parlor game, as short sellers have to deliver against futures contracts, and there are rumors that these shadow contracts entail no deliveries. But that is precisely why the two major banks are accumulating physical gold bullion, because when the shorts are covered (i.e. gold explodes upward in price), their inventory will (partially) offset their losing sales contracts.
Another compelling case for gold: The Treasury is printing trillions of dollars for bailouts--equal to half the US GDP. What happens when you have oversupply of a commodity--including a local currency? It removes scarcity, plummeting that currency. What happens when your currency is devalued? Gold soars--it's a mathematical reality, not some wild rantings of a gold bug.
Look, gold has been the absolute worst investment vehicle from 1980 - 2000.
But in the 70's, it was the absolute best--even with inventory costs taken into account. Gold went up 23-fold in that decade. Gold mining shares went up twice that level. If many prognosticators are saying this run is much worse than 73-74 and 78, what does that say about the price of gold? Does anybody think post-2008 will be a replay of the roaring 80's and late-90's stock market booms? Or are we headed for a very subdued 70's-like stagflation scenario? You decide.
BTW, the Big 3 is old news, despite the headlines. I called their demise 18 months ago, and their shares are down a nice 98%. It's done, finito. The next shocks will be a result of de-leveraging and the precipitous decline of most currencies and US long-term debt. Whoever buys US 10-year notes or Treasury bonds is going to get crushed. Taking on all that risk (after all, one could argue the US government is insolvent), and yet earning 2% on your money? When inflation rears its ugly head, and interest rates are in the double digits, those bonds will be worth less than Monopoly money.
If you think about it, who invented the internet? (No, it wasn't Al Gore). It was a British scientist educated in Switzerland (or it was a Swiss educated in the UK). But as far as monetizing the technology, most of the $$ were generated here, as well as accompanying technologies and services. It's okay to be a consumer-oriented economy, as long innovation continues domestically.
I think that's what dawg was sarcastically inferring--we can't go backwards.
To be honest, the only way we go back to real economic growth--without inflation and the abuse of leverage, is to go back to the gold standard. History has shown time again that when sovereign governments abandon gold-backed currencies, paralyzing hyperinflation becomes the unintended consequence down the road. With fiat currencies, central banks are permitted to print money unjudiciously--most of the time to try to dampen deep recessions (sounds familiar?). Deflation and avoidance of The Great Depression category 5 is the concern du jour, but the Coming to Jesus day will arrive soon enough, and we will all pay for these bailouts, literally with higher taxes and a higher cost of living (and accompanying lower standard of living).
Think about it: with our reserve banking system, a 20% run on demand deposits would make every single one of our major banks insolvent. This is not just a mortgage crisis, a credit crisis, etc.--it's a crisis of confidence. And with flimsy fiat, finance-based economies, confidence is everything (since there is no gold backing up the currency).
Of course, resetting of a new gold standard would mean a level of around $1500/ounce, which would cut everybody's cash accounts in half, but that's what it would take. It happened in the early 30's, when FDR declared gold would be set at $35/oz, instead of the previous $20/oz. The federal government then went on to confiscate all individually held gold (with the exception of wedding rings), or citizens risked 10 years of prison and a $10,000 fine. All that gold is now at Fort Knox. This was due to the profligate Treasury printing presses during the easy money 20's, which in turn caused the Great Depression of the 30's. (See any parallels?).
I could go on and on about what's going on with the currency and gold markets right now, with the manipulation and placating of short-sellers, but I'll summarize with this: if JP Morgan and Citibank are openly predicting $1500/oz gold for next year, and if they are accumulating gold bullion as we speak (as are Dubai, Saudi and Chinese governments), then why are they selling short gold? Could it be they want to keep its price artificially low, in order to boost their purchases? Thing is, it's a dangerous parlor game, as short sellers have to deliver against futures contracts, and there are rumors that these shadow contracts entail no deliveries. But that is precisely why the two major banks are accumulating physical gold bullion, because when the shorts are covered (i.e. gold explodes upward in price), their inventory will (partially) offset their losing sales contracts.
Another compelling case for gold: The Treasury is printing trillions of dollars for bailouts--equal to half the US GDP. What happens when you have oversupply of a commodity--including a local currency? It removes scarcity, plummeting that currency. What happens when your currency is devalued? Gold soars--it's a mathematical reality, not some wild rantings of a gold bug.
Look, gold has been the absolute worst investment vehicle from 1980 - 2000.
But in the 70's, it was the absolute best--even with inventory costs taken into account. Gold went up 23-fold in that decade. Gold mining shares went up twice that level. If many prognosticators are saying this run is much worse than 73-74 and 78, what does that say about the price of gold? Does anybody think post-2008 will be a replay of the roaring 80's and late-90's stock market booms? Or are we headed for a very subdued 70's-like stagflation scenario? You decide.
BTW, the Big 3 is old news, despite the headlines. I called their demise 18 months ago, and their shares are down a nice 98%. It's done, finito. The next shocks will be a result of de-leveraging and the precipitous decline of most currencies and US long-term debt. Whoever buys US 10-year notes or Treasury bonds is going to get crushed. Taking on all that risk (after all, one could argue the US government is insolvent), and yet earning 2% on your money? When inflation rears its ugly head, and interest rates are in the double digits, those bonds will be worth less than Monopoly money.
Labels:
banking,
bullion,
cost of living,
currencies,
deflation,
fiat,
futures,
gold,
inflation,
internet,
leverage,
reserves,
short selling,
standard,
standard of living,
Treasury bonds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
