Did a post on the corporate blog about changes in the percentage of metal held by Depository in allocated form. I see it as a sort of a “fear index” as it can indicate a change in clients’ perception of economic uncertainty and risk. It has declined from 25% in 1999 to 5% in 2007 but has risen since then to 15% - risk aversion is back baby and I can only see it increasing. This will make our coin guys happy.
Producing more than you consume
From The Flow of Value blog:
"All investments are made with surplus value (some of which has been borrowed to be invested), which has been netted out of the flow of value by those who produce more than they consume. This stock of value is commonly known as wealth. But governments and borrowers are consuming more than they produce, and as such are consuming from this wealth accrued by others."
Part of the problem is that those who produce more than they consume stupidly lend to those who consume more than they produce. If the lenders only lent to those legitimately aiming to increase value by starting/expanding businesses (real wealth creation) would we be in the problem we are?
However, few can directly lend to productive members of society. That is the function performed by bankers as they are supposed to intermediate between lender and borrower, doing the checks on the borrower the lender does not have the skills or time to do.
However, the banks haven't been productively lending as proven by Money Morning who show, as an example, an Australian bank (ANZ) is currently lending 59% into the residential mortgage market compared to 25% in 1978, when they were lending a far bigger proportion to wealth creating business. As Money Morning says:
"In 1978, total lending to the business sector made up over half of all the bank’s lending. Yet today it’s a pathetic 17%. ... The result is less credit flows through to business, including entrepreneurial business. It means just as private enterprise can be crowded out by government spending, private enterprise can be crowded out by a misallocation of resources by retail banks."
Dave in Denver - The Golden Truth?
A couple of weeks ago this blogger did a post about the University of Texas taking delivery. In it he made the following statement
"Delaware Depository also serves as one of the Comex depositories and you risk having your gold mingled with unallocated gold or "accidentally" borrowed"
To me he is saying Delaware Depository would defraud their clients by giving/lending a bullion bank the client's allocated gold without their knowledge. I left a comment saying as such and that I thought he had stepped over the line with this.
He replied, saying I "crossed over the line by accusing me of crossing over the line". I left another response disagreeing, but he did not allow it through. I emailed him to ask if he hadn't got the response or had, but wasn't going to publish it. No reply back from him.
My view of blogging is that you should be prepared to defend yourself (or admit you were wrong) if you are really after the truth. Dave obviously disagrees. Below is the response he would not publish - I'll let you make up your mind on whether Dave is really after the Golden Truth.
"Very few people/entities can be trusted in the world of precious metals" Agreed, but I gather you don't include Perth Mint in that :)
Your argument against DDSC is based on two red flags. First is non disclosure of insurance arrangements. Here "DDSC agrees to maintain "all risk" insurance coverage for Precious Metals stored for you." That is a bit vague as it doesn't say "fully" but they do say here that "All precious metal assets held at DDSC are maintained in customer-specific custody accounts, on a fully insured basis, and off of DDSC's balance sheet." If they aren't fully insuring but saying they are then that is not good and a real red flag - I'm assuming you know for a fact that they don't fully insure.
I would note that any depository of size is unable to be fully insured because insurance markets don't have the capacity/willingness to underwrite it. That would cut in at around $1b - $2b with the cost getting prohibitive beyond that, assuming it is even available. If DDSC's total holdings are above that you may have a point.
"DDC is a Comex depository - sorry, guilt by association and guilt by sleaze." I think you're second red flag of guilt by association is weak. As you say "With the sleaze and corruption embedded in our entire system, especially on Wall Street" you can't trust Wall Street. But then you yourself "trading on Wall Street. For nine of those years, I traded junk bonds for a large bank", so couldn't someone just raise a similar guilt by association red flag on you? You don't disclose that you didn't work for Goldman? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are guilty by association, just suggesting you put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.
"If you want to read into or infer anything from what I wrote, that's your business" I don't think it is just me reading that in, I think most people would. Because I think most people would read that into it that is why I think it steps over the line.
When you say "you risk having your gold mingled with unallocated gold or 'accidentally' borrowed" you are saying there is a reasonable possibility (ie risk) that DDSC will engage in criminal fraudulent action to comingle a client's metal and/or lease it out. That is a pretty strong statement.
"you crossed over the line by accusing me of crossing over the line" So it is OK for you to accuse someone of being at risk of acting criminally but not OK for me to simply say I think you went too far by making that statement? I think our differing views about “crossing the line” is a difference between Australia and America in respects of custom and laws regarding defamation and free speech.
"Delaware Depository also serves as one of the Comex depositories and you risk having your gold mingled with unallocated gold or "accidentally" borrowed"
To me he is saying Delaware Depository would defraud their clients by giving/lending a bullion bank the client's allocated gold without their knowledge. I left a comment saying as such and that I thought he had stepped over the line with this.
He replied, saying I "crossed over the line by accusing me of crossing over the line". I left another response disagreeing, but he did not allow it through. I emailed him to ask if he hadn't got the response or had, but wasn't going to publish it. No reply back from him.
My view of blogging is that you should be prepared to defend yourself (or admit you were wrong) if you are really after the truth. Dave obviously disagrees. Below is the response he would not publish - I'll let you make up your mind on whether Dave is really after the Golden Truth.
"Very few people/entities can be trusted in the world of precious metals" Agreed, but I gather you don't include Perth Mint in that :)
Your argument against DDSC is based on two red flags. First is non disclosure of insurance arrangements. Here "DDSC agrees to maintain "all risk" insurance coverage for Precious Metals stored for you." That is a bit vague as it doesn't say "fully" but they do say here that "All precious metal assets held at DDSC are maintained in customer-specific custody accounts, on a fully insured basis, and off of DDSC's balance sheet." If they aren't fully insuring but saying they are then that is not good and a real red flag - I'm assuming you know for a fact that they don't fully insure.
I would note that any depository of size is unable to be fully insured because insurance markets don't have the capacity/willingness to underwrite it. That would cut in at around $1b - $2b with the cost getting prohibitive beyond that, assuming it is even available. If DDSC's total holdings are above that you may have a point.
"DDC is a Comex depository - sorry, guilt by association and guilt by sleaze." I think you're second red flag of guilt by association is weak. As you say "With the sleaze and corruption embedded in our entire system, especially on Wall Street" you can't trust Wall Street. But then you yourself "trading on Wall Street. For nine of those years, I traded junk bonds for a large bank", so couldn't someone just raise a similar guilt by association red flag on you? You don't disclose that you didn't work for Goldman? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are guilty by association, just suggesting you put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.
"If you want to read into or infer anything from what I wrote, that's your business" I don't think it is just me reading that in, I think most people would. Because I think most people would read that into it that is why I think it steps over the line.
When you say "you risk having your gold mingled with unallocated gold or 'accidentally' borrowed" you are saying there is a reasonable possibility (ie risk) that DDSC will engage in criminal fraudulent action to comingle a client's metal and/or lease it out. That is a pretty strong statement.
"you crossed over the line by accusing me of crossing over the line" So it is OK for you to accuse someone of being at risk of acting criminally but not OK for me to simply say I think you went too far by making that statement? I think our differing views about “crossing the line” is a difference between Australia and America in respects of custom and laws regarding defamation and free speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)