View Full Version : Gold price manipulation proof, M3 update
There's really not much to say, since the raw charted data is so obvious, but there are some facts.
* The correlation between the European Central Bank's gold purchase and sale activity (http://sdw.ecb.int/search.do?type=free&query=gold+receivables) and the gold price in Euros is .97. That means that 97% of the gold price changes since 1999 can be explained by ECB actions alone.
* The left hand scale on both charts is in metric tonnes. One metric tonne is about 32,150 troy ounces of gold.
* As just one example of the very large size of ECB gold operations, during the gold price increase from early April 2006 to the peak in mid May 2006, the ECB sold 1,800 metric tonnes of gold. That translates to about 58 million troy ounces.During the fall from mid May 2006 to a bottom in June 2006, they bought back 2,345 metric tonnes, which is approximately 75 million troy ounces.
* Just for reference, the total supply of gold per the World Gold Council (http://www.gold.org/) in 2005 was 3,953 metric tonnes or about 127 million troy ounces.
* The total gold price increase from about 325 to 500 Euros caused the average ECB gold inventory to drop about 1500 metric tonnes or about 48 million troy ounces.
* The quantity of gold trading by the ECB dwarfs the total 500 metric tonne sale limit of the Washington Agreement.
* For those who might point out that futures trading quantities are far larger, that's true. But not only are they only paper trades and physical gold is seldom delivered, but also there are thousands of different traders and none consistently trade in quantities similar to the ECB.
* The data is published by the ECB anywhere from 2-6 weeks behind the events, so it's not useful for trading.
* Some might prefer to look at the data as evidence of control, as opposed to manipulation.
The gold trading record of the ECB, since 1999
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/ecb_weekly_gold_long_term.png
The 2006-07 close-up gold trading record of the ECB
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/ecb_weekly_gold.png
"So the question is, having very consciously and purposely tried to break the bubble and upset the markets in order to sort of break the cocoon of capital gains speculation, we are now in a position—having done that and in a sense succeeded perhaps more than we had intended—to try to restore some degree of confidence in the System."
-- Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Source: Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting minutes from March 22, 1994
Gold Market Lending (http://www.blanchardonline.com/beru/lending_research_report_index.php), an excellent treatment of many issues in this area from Blanchard and Company, Inc.
===============================
M3 update
Just last week, we broke above a 12% annual rate of change which is the first time that has happened since May 2001. For what its worth, the official recession started in March 2001.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/m3b.png
(edited to update the ECB search link - it worked Sunday and didn't work today)
bart,
first a housekeeping note. the alan blinder "quote" from the nightly business report is apparently an urban legend. it's all over the net, so the nightly business report searched all its archives from the year in question and says the quote never happened.,
the ecb gold trading looks like the commercials in the cot reports- buying the dips and selling the rises. when you said the correlation is .97, over what time period are you calculating that? and my statistics knowledge is very meagre, but does a high correlation in short term moves imply anything over a longer period?
Pilot Fish
01-23-07, 06:02 PM
Bart,
Pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure I get your point. So they sell into strength and buy into weakness. Kind of like several Central Banks seem to do with the dollar.
bart,
first a housekeeping note. the alan blinder "quote" from the nightly business report is apparently an urban legend. it's all over the net, so the nightly business report searched all its archives from the year in question and says the quote never happened.,
the ecb gold trading looks like the commercials in the cot reports- buying the dips and selling the rises. when you said the correlation is .97, over what time period are you calculating that? and my statistics knowledge is very meagre, but does a high correlation in short term moves imply anything over a longer period?
I've actually heard it both ways on that Blinder quote, but rather than go into tinfoil hat mode and try to defend it, I just replaced it with another Greenspan quote which is at least (if not more) damning.
The COT commercials are amateurs when compared to the ECB and their gold manipulation history. The correlation there is under .7 on average, and sometimes much lower depending on the market.
The time period of that .97 correlation is 1999 through the current day, which is why I placed it on the long term chart rather than the short term one, and also didn't even bother to note it was for the entire public track history.
Bart,
Pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure I get your point. So they sell into strength and buy into weakness. Kind of like several Central Banks seem to do with the dollar.
You can certainly look at it that way, but my preferred interpretation is that they are the ones generally creating or allowing (much)most of that weakness and strength.
A .97 correlation is virtually unheard of in trading/investing success.
bart, re the correlation time period: i understand the long period over which the data was gathered. what i meant was, if the ecb trades in some way over x days, the gold price will move y days later for a period of z days. that is, are we talking about hour to hour correlations? [the ecb buys at 10am and we have a big correlation with the price at 10:15am?] or day to day,week to week? and if we have a big correlation e.g. hour to hour, does that prove anything over longer time periods?
for example, if we look at the trading of nyse specialists, i would imagine there are strong correlations to price movements over brief periods. but i don't assume that data could predict long term movements.
bart, re the correlation time period: i understand the long period over which the data was gathered. what i meant was, if the ecb trades in some way over x days, the gold price will move y days later for a period of z days. that is, are we talking about hour to hour correlations? [the ecb buys at 10am and we have a big correlation with the price at 10:15am?] or day to day,week to week? and if we have a big correlation e.g. hour to hour, does that prove anything over longer time periods?
for example, if we look at the trading of nyse specialists, i would imagine there are strong correlations to price movements over brief periods. but i don't assume that data could predict long term movements.
Sorry, I didn't understand what you were driving at before.
The ECB data is only available in a weekly format so that's all I could calculate and be reasonably certain of.
I hope that the very recent decision by the IMF to have all central banks report more of their gold transactions will help answer that question more to your satisfaction as the data becomes publicly available... but I doubt it will ever go to hourly data points. That IMF decision, by the way, was mostly due to that paper I referenced and other actions by Blanchard - big kudos to them.
Go look at the charts at Kitco and watch what happens around lunchtime everyday on the London exchange to the price of gold :D I always find it interesting to see the " gold clock " turn everyday, for sure the ECB has more to do with it than anyone else.
Sorry, I didn't understand what you were driving at before.
The ECB data is only available in a weekly format so that's all I could calculate and be reasonably certain of.
I hope that the very recent decision by the IMF to have all central banks report more of their gold transactions will help answer that question more to your satisfaction as the data becomes publicly available... but I doubt it will ever go to hourly data points. That IMF decision, by the way, was mostly due to that paper I referenced and other actions by Blanchard - big kudos to them.
i'm less interested in hour to hour than in month to months. again, using the analogy of a nyse specialist, their interventions will tend to be countertrend as they moderate the markets moves, and they tend to be very profitable, but they don't drive the long term price movements. what i'm trying to get at is whether the high correlation of weekly data means that they are driving the long term price in any particular direction, or are they just acting like a "specialist," reducing volatility and making money for their trouble.
i'm less interested in hour to hour than in month to months. again, using the analogy of a nyse specialist, their interventions will tend to be countertrend as they moderate the markets moves, and they tend to be very profitable, but they don't drive the long term price movements. what i'm trying to get at is whether the high correlation of weekly data means that they are driving the long term price in any particular direction, or are they just acting like a "specialist," reducing volatility and making money for their trouble.
When and if we get longer term data, especially if it goes back into the '70s, there will certainly be a better answer.
But for now, my opinion is pretty much summed up in both the extremely high correlation and the large (and so far permanent) inventory drop since mid 2005... and of course the title of the piece. It's difficult at best for me to attribute what they do and their track history to a mostly benign purpose, or similar to a specialist.
Do keep in mind things like the trading of 133+ million ounces in less than a three month period when total yearly mine and other production is only about 125 million ounces. Specialists don't trade at anywhere near that level. And that's only the ECB's trading too...
There are also the various statements over the years by central and other bankers concerning the importance of exerting control over the gold price due to its use as an inflation indicator by much of the public.
care to speculate on where those 1500 metric tonnes are now?
care to speculate on where those 1500 metric tonnes are now?
One of these days, can you ask an easy one? ;)
Pure speculation only - I'd say at least 1/2 is now in Middle Eastern and Asian resident's or organization's hands. Russia was probably involved for another chunk too, via third parties.
One of these days, can you ask an easy one? ;)
Pure speculation only - I'd say at least 1/2 is now in Middle Eastern and Asian resident's or organization's hands. Russia was probably involved for another chunk too, via third parties.
weak hands to strong hands?
we'll see if the ecb's sales are remembered like gordon brown's for the boe: ringing the bell for a/the bottom.
weak hands to strong hands?
we'll see if the ecb's sales are remembered like gordon brown's for the boe: ringing the bell for a/the bottom.
You got it on stronger hands, and your guess is at least as good as mine on where it went too.
Good one on the BoE and ECB possible future parallel.
Finster
01-28-07, 11:51 AM
There's really not much to say, since the raw charted data is so obvious, but there are some facts.
* The correlation between the European Central Bank's gold purchase and sale activity (http://sdw.ecb.int/search.do?type=free&query=gold+receivables) and the gold price in Euros is .97. That means that 97% of the gold price changes since 1999 can be explained by ECB actions alone...
There's more interpretation than fact at stake here. You cite a correlation between ECB actions and the price of gold in euros. All well and good, and solidly in the domain of fact. But to conclude the ECB is "manipulating the gold price" is just as solidly in the domain of interpretation.
We can look at precisely the same factual data and just as validly conclude that the ECB is "manipulating the euro price". What is it that compels us to conclude that the ECB is using the euro to manipulate the price of gold, when we could just as easily conclude the ECB is using gold to manipulate the "price" of the euro?
I can think of nothing apart from our ingrained tendency - unfounded but for habit - of using man-made currency as a standard of value. Yet it is the gold - not the paper - that is the real money.
If the ratio of the value of gold - real, tangible, physical stuff - moves from one ounce per 400 euros to one ounce per 500 euros, we are taking a huge leap of faith to assume, without further analysis, to conclude that the value of the gold has "risen" by 25%. We can just as easily say the value of the euro has fallen by 20% - from 1/400 an ounce of gold to 1/500 an ounce of gold.
Any suggestion that the ECB is "manipulating" the value of gold therefore requires far more work to justify than has been done here.
There's more interpretation than fact at stake here. You cite a correlation between ECB actions and the price of gold in euros. All well and good, and solidly in the domain of fact. But to conclude the ECB is "manipulating the gold price" is just as solidly in the domain of interpretation.
We can look at precisely the same factual data and just as validly conclude that the ECB is "manipulating the euro price". What is it that compels us to conclude that the ECB is using the euro to manipulate the price of gold, when we could just as easily conclude the ECB is using gold to manipulate the "price" of the euro?
I can think of nothing apart from our ingrained tendency - unfounded but for habit - of using man-made currency as a standard of value. Yet it is the gold - not the paper - that is the real money.
If the ratio of the value of gold - real, tangible, physical stuff - moves from one ounce per 400 euros to one ounce per 500 euros, we are taking a huge leap of faith to assume, without further analysis, to conclude that the value of the gold has "risen" by 25%. We can just as easily say the value of the euro has fallen by 20% - from 1/400 an ounce of gold to 1/500 an ounce of gold.
Any suggestion that the ECB is "manipulating" the value of gold therefore requires far more work to justify than has been done here.
Indeed, correlation does not automatically mean causation... but not one person out of hundreds has offered any other alternative reasoning or interpretation for the extraordinary relationship.
I won't bother posting this type of stuff anymore.
Jim Nickerson
01-28-07, 01:19 PM
I won't bother posting this type of stuff anymore.
Forgive me if I am wrong, Bart, but it seems Finster has hurt your feelings and you are going to take your charts and go somewhere they are better appreciated. I, for one, appreciate all the time and thought it takes for you to collect unimagineable data and then put them into charts--your compulsiveness (which I see a quite a good trait) as demonstrated at nowfutures.com is overwhelming as a indication of how much a person can accomplish. Gosh, compare Finster's site to yours and ask who works the hardest?
I really grew to maturity (if in fact I have achieved that) in a area of science (not that I was ever truly much of a scientist), and if there is anything to the whole notion of discourse amongst those of like minds, the value of interaction comes from developing ideas, thoughts, theories and then organizing them and placing them before others for critical scrutiny. If such does not take place, there is no progress.
For my "money, I look forward to continuing to see you put forth things as you figure them out, and just as much for Finster to criticize them as he sees fit, granting, of course, recognition to the fact that Finster is not really very adept when it comes to criticizing. :)
Finster
01-28-07, 01:22 PM
Indeed, correlation does not automatically mean causation... but not one person out of hundreds has offered any other alternative reasoning or interpretation for the extraordinary relationship.
This is why it has to be pointed out. Not one person out of hundreds bothers to ask such questions!
Regardless, it sounds like you may have missed the point I was making. I'm not denying a causal relationship between the ECB's actions and the gold price. The correlation is fact, and causation is more than plausible. What I am questioning is interpreting it as a manipulation of the value of gold as opposed to a manipulation of the value of the euro.
Also, I’m hardly suggesting that central bankers’ motives are always honest and pure. If it were their intention to deliberately impoverish owners of gold, we’d probably agree on painting it in sinister colors. But the value of the euro would presumably be a legitimate concern of the ECB. The tools it has at its disposal include its reserves of gold as well as its rate setting policy. If it takes euros out of the marketplace by buying them with gold from its reserves, it seems reasonable to conclude that it may be using the gold to support the value of the euro. In effect, it is employing a variation of the time-honored practice of backing the currency with gold.
I don’t claim to have proof of this interpretation, but neither do we have proof for any other. All we really know is that the ECB is impacting the euro/gold ratio.
I won't bother posting this type of stuff anymore.
But you still haven't used your get-out-of-finned free card ... :eek:
Forgive me if I am wrong, Bart, but it seems Finster has hurt your feelings and you are going to take your charts and go somewhere they are better appreciated. I, for one, appreciate all the time and thought it takes for you to collect unimagineable data and then put them into charts--your compulsiveness (which I see a quite a good trait) as demonstrated at nowfutures.com is overwhelming as a indication of how much a person can accomplish. Gosh, compare Finster's site to yours and ask who works the hardest?
I really grew to maturity (if in fact I have achieved that) in a area of science (not that I was ever truly much of a scientist), and if there is anything to the whole notion of discourse amongst those of like minds, the value of interaction comes from developing ideas, thoughts, theories and then organizing them and placing them before others for critical scrutiny. If such does not take place, there is no progress.
For my "money, I look forward to continuing to see you put forth things as you figure them out, and just as much for Finster to criticize them as he sees fit, granting, of course, recognition to the fact that Finster is not really very adept when it comes to criticizing. :)
No, that was just Finster having a "fin" moment, and my feelings aren't hurt at all.
It's more that some of the charts and work I do in the areas off the beaten path generally aren't understood or read here, except by a very few. I'll continue to post and also post some of my charts, but they'll be ones that are closer to the mainstream (not on the mainstream, just closer).
Here's a sample of something closer to mainstream that I don't think I've ever posted here:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/unemployment_recession1970-current.png
Chart compulsion wise, that's more of a tongue in cheek comment on my part about the last 18 months or so. I've actually created very few new charts in the last two months or so. I achieved a specific goal at about that time, and although there are a few more to come, it appears that the majority of my charting work is complete.
Also note that there are about 20 that are not public, and some of them are similar to the ECB charts with which I started this thread.
Thanks very much for the kind comments and thoughts about my work and site.
This is why it has to be pointed out. Not one person out of hundreds bothers to ask such questions!
Regardless, it sounds like you may have missed the point I was making. I'm not denying a causal relationship between the ECB's actions and the gold price. The correlation is fact, and causation is more than plausible. What I am questioning is interpreting it as a manipulation of the value of gold as opposed to a manipulation of the value of the euro.
Also, I’m hardly suggesting that central bankers’ motives are always honest and pure. If it were their intention to deliberately impoverish owners of gold, we’d probably agree on painting it in sinister colors. But the value of the euro would presumably be a legitimate concern of the ECB. The tools it has at its disposal include its reserves of gold as well as its rate setting policy. If it takes euros out of the marketplace by buying them with gold from its reserves, it seems reasonable to conclude that it may be using the gold to support the value of the euro. In effect, it is employing a variation of the time-honored practice of backing the currency with gold.
I don’t claim to have proof of this interpretation, but neither do we have proof for any other. All we really know is that the ECB is impacting the euro/gold ratio.
No question, oh manor dooood... and far be it from me to note anything about ill manored... ;)
Seriously though, your point was actually well taken in the sense of questioning the whole area and how to interpret the evidence. I do also understand that you're in general agreement about at least the possibility of manipulation or control, whether it's of gold or the euro itself or even both.
It's much more what I just noted above - the level of interest and/or understanding here of stuff like the ECB work, or my TIO & TOMO work just plain isn't there for whatever reasons.
But you still haven't used your get-out-of-finned free card ... :eek:
It's too valuable... I've put it in my will and you'll hear from my daughter... :eek: :rolleyes: ;)
Finster
01-28-07, 04:05 PM
No question, oh manor dooood... and far be it from me to note anything about ill manored... ;)
Hui, moi? :D
I do also understand that you're in general agreement about at least the possibility of manipulation or control, whether it's of gold or the euro itself or even both.
Absolutely. There’s at least a 97% ;) certainty the ECB is engaging in manipulation or control of gold, the euro or both. We could even go so far as to say the ECB is trying to manipulate the euro/gold ratio. I am simply noting that the euro is an intergral part of that ratio, and that the ECB may be using gold to manipulate or control the euro, vis-à-vis the other way around. A change in the euro/gold exchange rate would be an inherent part of achieving that. The only question is whether we should look at it as the ECB’s having used the euro to drive down the value of gold, or of using the gold to support the value of the euro.
I would merely suggest that given the ECB’s stated concern about inflationary pressures, it would make sense if they were using their gold reserves - as well as their rate policy - to support the purchasing power of the euro and therefore mitigate those inflationary pressures.
As a rough analogy, imagine a corporation (a large, mega-corporation, e.g. Microsoft or Exxon Mobil) that has a lot of cash (dollars) on the balance sheet. For whatever reason (general market selloff,or whatever), its stock is plunging. The corporation undertakes a major stock repurchase in an effort to support its stock price. And imagine the effort is successful.
We would see the market value ratio of the corporation’s stock to dollars rise. Clearly it is manipulating something. And we could interpret this in two ways. We could say the corporation is dumping dollars to drive down their value. Or we could say the corporation is accumulating stock to drive it higher. Each point of view would have merit, and we couldn’t - on the basis of the hard data alone - determine one or the other to be the whole truth.
In like vein, we can look at the ECB as a sort of corporation whose "stock" is the euro. It has a lot of money (gold) on the balance sheet. If it sees the value of its "stock" plunging, it can use that gold to "buy" back that paper to support its value. Again, we could interpret this in two ways. We could say the "corporation" is dumping gold to drive down its value. Or we could say the "corporation" is accumulating "stock" (euros) to drive it higher. Each point of view would have merit, and we couldn’t - on the basis of the hard data alone - determine one or the other to be the whole truth.
My inclination is in each case to view the primary motive as the one pertaining to the security the corporation has issued. That is, in the first case, the corporation is trading dollars for stock primarily in order to increase the value of the stock (rather than to drive down the value of the dollar). In the second case, the central bank is trading gold for currency primarily to increase the value of the currency (rather than to drive down the value of the gold). I cannot prove the motive, just show that the facts alone do not lead us ineluctably to one conclusion or the other.
It's much more what I just noted above - the level of interest and/or understanding here of stuff like the ECB work, or my TIO & TOMO work just plain isn't there for whatever reasons.
FWIW, I think you should just keep on truckin’. It actually strikes me as surprising how much interest your work does generate; not because it’s not important, but because it may appear to the uninitiated as somewhat esoteric. But as you know, what central banks do has profound implications for our investments - even our society. To the extent interest and understanding may be falling short of your expectations, maybe just try a little more to teach us about it. When it comes to central banking, you are our man on the scene … we’re counting on you! :)
It's too valuable... I've put it in my will and you'll hear from my daughter... :eek: :rolleyes: ;)
:eek:
Jim Nickerson
01-28-07, 04:20 PM
Here's a sample of something closer to mainstream that I don't think I've ever posted here:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/unemployment_recession1970-current.png
Thanks very much for the kind comments and thoughts about my work and site.
Now if someone showed me a chart with just one data line on it and asked me to guess: Is this a Bart Chart or not Bart Chart? I would guess not. I don't recall a Bart Chart with just one line on it, with one line I would think it a Sinster or Sinister Chart.
I would merely suggest that given the ECB’s stated concern about inflationary pressures, it would make sense if they were using their gold reserves - as well as their rate policy - to support the purchasing power of the euro and therefore mitigate those inflationary pressures.
As a rough analogy, imagine a corporation (a large, mega-corporation, e.g. Microsoft or Exxon Mobil) that has a lot of cash (dollars) on the balance sheet. For whatever reason (general market selloff,or whatever), its stock is plunging. The corporation undertakes a major stock repurchase in an effort to support its stock price. And imagine the effort is successful.
As usual, you very much have the concept and understanding.
I could take off and show, via charts of stuff like lease rates, that more of the manipulation was focused on the gold price than on support of the euro... but it would not be terribly useful.
I do want to note though (since you mentioned gold reserves) that the ECB actions are far and above mostly with what they call "gold receivables", not physical gold.
FWIW, I think you should just keep on truckin’. It actually strikes me as surprising how much interest your work does generate; not because it’s not important, but because it may appear to the uninitiated as somewhat esoteric. But as you know, what central banks do has profound implications for our investments - even our society. To the extent interest and understanding may be falling short of your expectations, maybe just try a little more to teach us about it. When it comes to central banking, you are our man on the scene … we’re counting on you! :)
:eek:
Very smooth, manor maven... ;)
Esoteric is the word fer shure. It's very much what I was referring to in prior messages.
I do know that I have a certain command of central bank and similar issues, and also know how very difficult it is to get certain points across... especially about economics, one of the most BS filled areas on Earth. There is almost literally a religious fervor with which some hold their Keynesian or similar approaches.
I have a tendency as well for folk to see me with a tinfoil hat (my image/avatar notwithstanding ;) ... and I know how much that shocks you :eek: ), especially since much of my work is about real manipulation or behind-the-curtain actions.
Who would have even dreamed that when I published my M3 less than a year ago that my site would be getting the attention and hits it gets today... going forward, it'll be a continuing "punt", much as my whole site has been.
But the public part will likely become a lot simpler and less esoteric... or at least, that's my current think.
Now if someone showed me a chart with just one data line on it and asked me to guess: Is this a Bart Chart or not Bart Chart? I would guess not. I don't recall a Bart Chart with just one line on it, with one line I would think it a Sinster or Sinister Chart.
ssshhhh... don't tell anyone, but that chart was prepared by my evil twin... ;)
Charles Mackay
02-28-07, 08:12 AM
My general view is that there is currently an epic struggle between the IMF/ dollar world and the BIS/ Euro world. The BIS would like gold in the multiple 1000's so they can issue more Euros without causing inflation and have the Euro in more widespread use and function in oil settlement.. breaking the back of dollar hegemony. The IMF and the dollar world wants to hold down the price of gold so that the illusion of dollar strength and oil settlement continues in the dollar.
Quite a drop in M3 recently on an annual rate of change basis:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/m3b.png
bart, does that have to do with all the mortgage lenders who are going out of business and can't print money anymore? (because if credit contracts, that means M3 contracts with it right...?)
bart, does that have to do with all the mortgage lenders who are going out of business and can't print money anymore? (because if credit contracts, that means M3 contracts with it right...?)
Generally no - M3 does not directly contain anything credit related.
The current drop is due to a combination of factors. The Fed and banking system aren't creating repos at the high and increasing rate they were a while back, there's a lagged effect from Eurodollar flow due to an oil price drop a few months ago, and institutional money market fund balances have fallen off some from a very high growth rate.
Forgive my ignorance bart (money supply issues are quite possibly the most complex and hazy part of my own personal understanding of macroeconomics), but aren't repos and cd's above 100k related to mortgage lending?
tia
Forgive my ignorance bart (money supply issues are quite possibly the most complex and hazy part of my own personal understanding of macroeconomics), but aren't repos and cd's above 100k related to mortgage lending?
tia
I'll forgive yours if you'll forgive mine? The whole area does not exactly seem to have been designed for ease of understanding.
Since I'm not sure exactly what you're driving at, all I can say is that I'm sure some portion of repo and jumbo CD changes are related to mortgage lending and the current credit picture.
Those repos, basically being nothing but short term loans from and by the commercial banks, are affected by overall liquidity and the same with CDs... but I'm not sure that anyone, including the Fed, knows how much they're affecting M3 currently.
It's also pretty early to make a call on M3 expansion having peaked, but I do expect it to within a few months - if it hasn't already.
I'm not a regular member of this board, but just wanted to offer some data for everyone's benefit. First, I want to express lots of grattitude to Bart for the analysis. It connected me to sources of data that I did not know about.
After reconstructing Bart's analysis, I got pretty much the same results. However, after further research, I discovered that the ECB names a gold price in Euros only once per quarter. After that, all their numbers for the value of their gold holdings are based on that quarterly gold price.
When you calculate their gold holdings (tonnes) based on this quarterly price, the picture changes completely. The ECB gold holdings are on a steady decline and they do not appear to be involved in buy backs, at least not on the basis of the data that they publish.
If this post irritates some people, my apologies in advance. That isn't my intention. Rather, my only interest in posting is to offer something in return for what I gained from Bart's analysis. It really makes not a bit of difference to me whether anyone believes this or not. The only way to prove anything to oneself is to go through the data personally and draw your own conclusions.
Anyway, thanks again to Bart and good trading to everyone!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.