Euro Dollars - The Great Dollar Overhang and Missing M3 Component - Gold and Silver

These figures are from the Preliminary BIS Reports of November 2011 which reflect reporting bank positions as of the Jun 2011 quarter. Obviously therefore they do not yet reflect the recent Fed expansion of the swap lines for dollars.  The first chart represents the total dollars held by banks as 'foreign currency.'

As you will recall, a 'euro dollar' is any US dollar being held overseas, in currency or in electronic digits, whether in Europe or Asia.  I should add that a certain amount of physical dollars in private hands overseas are held outside the official banking system, particularly in the illicit substances and materials sector.

The 'Euro Dollar Gap' Chart which is the second chart reflects the difference between the reporting banks Liabilities and Assets in foreign held dollars. This gap can cause a Eurodollar short squeeze such as we had seen in 2008, and to a lesser extent in 2010. We are also in a eurodollar short squeeze now, as exemplified by the recent Central Bank effort to make more dollar swaps available to Europe. The BIS figures have obviously not yet caught up with this yet, but they will in time.

As discussed previously, one of the reasons that European Banks require Dollars is because customers were demanding the return of their dollar deposited financial instruments while the Banks dollar assets had markedly decreased in value because of bad investments in Dollar denominated Collateralized Debt Obligations.

In the third chart I compare the Fed's Eurodollar figures in the series that was discontinued in the beginning of 2006. Although the lines are relatively similar, it should be noted that the magnitudes of the numbers just do not match, with the BIS reporting significantly higher numbers even though the relative changes in the lines are similar. I do not know, for example, if the Fed was including Central Bank Reserves or not.

But I think one takeaway is that the amount of Eurodollars are significantly higher now than they have ever been as a result of the growth of the dollar bubble in US financialization of debt, much of which had been purchased by European banks.

The gap between Dollar Assets and Liabilities creates short term demand spikes, as we have just recently seen in the actions by the Fed and a few other Central Banks to make more US dollars available in swaps.

There is another set of BIS reports I am examining that render higher figures with current Eurodollars in the neighborhood of 3.2 Trillion.  I am trying to figure out what these amounts include that the other measurements do not.   In the interim I am using the lower of the two. 

The bigger picture is that this enormous growth in Eurodollars is a result of the US financialization, more colloquially known as 'The Credit Bubble' and the US ownership of what is still the world's reserve currency.

I have some queries into BIS to understand if these figures include official reserves held by Central Banks. I do not think they do.

However, IF the dollar is supplanted by something else, or some combinations of things, as the world's reserve currency, there are obviously going to be an excess of US dollars looking for some place to go from their current havens overseas. And it is mostly likely that they will come home to roost.

I am sure that the Fed has a plan to sterilize this expansion in dollars available for domestic use. Whether that plan can work is another matter altogether. I do not believe that there is any precedent for it.

But one thing that is clear to me is that since 2002 'we aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto,' at least with respect to the growth of the US dollar overseas. And I think there is a linkage between this and the rather impressive bull market in gold and silver.

Financial Times Says European Banks Lent Their Customer's Gold to the BIS

Although it does not appear until almost the end of this article in the Financial Times, BIS Gold Swaps Mystery Unravelled, the source of the gold provided in the dollar swaps with BIS is coming from customers of about 10 European banks who are holding their gold at the banks in 'unallocated accounts.'

"The gold used in the swaps came mainly from investors’ deposit accounts at the European commercial banks. Some investors prefer to deposit their gold in so-called “allocated accounts”, which restrict the custodian banks’ ability to use the gold in their market operations by assigning them specific bullion bars. But other investors prefer cheaper “unallocated accounts”, which give banks access to their bullion for their day-to-day operations.

The European Banks, including HSBC, Société Générale and BNP Paribas, were desperately in need of dollars because of a repeat of the eurodollar short squeeze which we had previously identified. Their customers were withdrawing dollars previously on deposit at the banks, which were unable to meet the demand because of the deterioration of the dollar assets they held, and because of the fractional reserve nature of their operations.

So the BIS stepped in, supplementing the swap lines the ECB has with the Fed, and swapped its dollar holdings directly for the some of the banks' customer's gold. Let us be clear about this. The gold is on deposit at the banks, in the same way that customer dollars had been on deposit. I do not wish to fuss too much about it, but at the time that the BIS swaps were revealed, a noted blogger pooh-poohed it with the toss off that 'everyone knows that the European commercial banks own quite a lot of gold.' Well, in this case, the ownership is greatly exaggerated. It is on deposit, owned by other people, but utilized as an asset by the bank. There is a difference.

In lending out the gold to BIS, they were relieved of their dollar short squeeze and were able to supply their customer demands. BIS obtained a fee of some sort in the swap, and so it is happy. But it should be noted that BIS had not done gold swaps for over forty years. So why now?

The question remains unanswered though. What is the duration of the swap, and does BIS intend to hold the gold or use it in other interbank operations?

A secondary question would be: why did the banks go directly to the BIS and swap their customer's gold, rather then to the ECB which is perfectly capable of managing swaplines for currency with the BIS and the Fed. Is the Fed running out of dollars? I have an open tab in my mind that the BIS was seeking gold to balance out demands from other banks for gold, not for dollars, and the eurodollar swaps were a convenient way to do it. This story that 'the BIS had lots of dollar lying around and were itching to use them' strikes me as being of the whole cloth.

Yes, the nice high level chart the FT includes shows the spike in gold holdings at the BIS, but does this mean that it is sitting there in their reserves unencumbered, or are they leasing any or all of it out, 'putting it to work' as they say? Central banks are notorious for making little distinction between unencumbered gold assets and real assets in the vault.

But it is nice to see verification in the mighty Financial Times that if you hold your bullion gold in an 'unallocated account' even with a prestigious bank, it may very well not be there when you wish to have it, and the prices will soar as the banks scurry to cover, just as has happened twice of late with their US dollar assets.

Or you may be asked to settle in cash if there is some clause in the contract, as in the case of the ETFs or the Comex.

BIS and the Gold Swaps: Curiouser and Curiouser

Here is an update on the BIS Gold swap story from The Wall Street Journal via GATA's Chris Powell.

Gold swap mystery deepens as BIS gets correction from Wall Street Journal
Submitted by cpowell on 07:41PM ET Wednesday, July 7, 2010.
Section: Daily Dispatches

10:47p ET Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

The Wall Street Journal this evening updated and corrected its report about the gold swaps undertaken by the Bank for International Settlements, disclosing an e-mailed statement from the BIS stating that the swaps were with commercial banks, not central banks as the newspaper first reported.

The updated story suggests that some puzzlement continues about the swaps:

"The enormous amount of gold involved, nearly tripling what the BIS itself owns, left many market participants wondering about the nature of the deals. The BIS declined to identify the commercial banks involved. ... It isn't clear what prompted the banks to borrow from the BIS instead of their central banks."

Further, without citing authority the paper says "the gold hasn't entered the open market," but "if the banks that loaned the gold are for some reason unable to make good on the loan, the BIS could opt to sell the gold in order to get its money back, which could amount to flooding the market with an unexpected boost to the global supply."

But gold being money that for years has been appreciating against nearly all currencies, as noted for you a few minutes ago here --

http://www.gata.org/node/8798

-- why would any institution want to sell gold "to get its money back?" -- unless, of course, "flooding the market" and suppressing the gold price wasn't the real objective?

Another unanswered question is where the European commercial banks got all that gold, "349 metric tons ... nearly tripling what the BIS itself owns." The European commercial banks aren't known for holding that much metal on their own account. (If you rent a safe-deposit box at a European commercial bank, you might want to check its contents in the morning.)

While the story has changed in an important way, the first principle of journalism hasn't, and journalists here haven't yet demanded information from the primary sources, the BIS and the commercial banks themselves. Nor has there been any change in the conclusion that must be drawn from the story so far. That is, the secrecy and the involvement of the BIS, an admitted gold market rigger, impugn the transaction as part of another gold market rigging scheme.

BIS In 380 Tonnes of Gold Swaps; Organized Looting of Sovereign Wealth; No Confidence

"Manipulation can only go so far…..especially when gold is reverting to its primary function which is as a currency in its own right or as means to substantiate existing currencies." Richard Henley Davis

These swaps have significance because of the speculation that the public sale of gold by the IMF, which was secretive and selective, was not a legitimate sale to raise funds, but a means of bailing out the bullion banks who had taken gold previously on lease and sold it into the public markets, but were unble to return it because of the tightness of supply in the physical bullion market, increasingly disconnected from the NY based paper market.

Several private bullion buyers, including Eric Sprott, are reported to have made firm and well priced offers to buy large tranches of gold from the IMF, only to be curtly turned away as 'ineligible.' The IMF is selling at the prices they determine ex-market to the people to whom they wish to sell. It appears that they, and certain European central banks, may be managing this through BIS.

Just as Gordon Brown sold England's gold at artificially low prices to bail out the bullion banks in NY and the City, so the IMF and its constituent members are selling the public stores of gold, largely from a few developed western nations, to support what essentially appears to be a crony capitalist banking fraud involving the secretive sale of public assets at artificial prices with the gains pocketed by a few state-sponsored banks.

"Gold swaps are usually undertaken between monetary authorities. The gold is exchanged for foreign exchange deposits (or other reserve assets) with an agreement that the transaction be unwound at an agreed future date, at an agreed price. The monetary authority acquiring the foreign exchange will pay interest on the foreign exchange received. Gold swaps are typically undertaken when the cash-taking monetary authority has need of foreign exchange but does not wish to sell outright its gold holdings (at least not on their own books - Jesse). In that manner, gold is a leveraging device. Gold swaps sometimes involve transactions where one of the parties is not a monetary authority (usually it is another depository corporation). Gold swaps between monetary authorities do not usually involve the payment of margin."

Repurchase Agreements, Securities Lending, Gold Swaps and Gold Loans, An Update - IMF

Some parties have mistakenly asserted that since a swap is not a lease for accounting purposes, which is quite correct, then the gold could not have been sold. That is just a simplistic misconception. A swap transfers the benefits of the assets from one party to another for a period of time in exchange for interest paid, generally on forex received. Its does not sell the property but it transfers the mineral rights for a time, if you will.

The party that then holds that gold asset can just hold it, or they can utilize it in some way, such as leasing it out for a period of time to another party, like a bullion bank, who can subsequently sell it. These types of 'three way deals' were very commonly seen when Lehman and Bear Stearns started to unravel and they needed ot be unwound, and were a key component of the whole issue of hidden counter party risks. Remember that?

So on the books of the first party there are in fact no leases or sales shown, just swaps of varying duration and terms. But the swap has delivered an asset, in this case gold, into the hands of a party who may have no qualms about leasing that asset out to a third party to obtain funds, and that third party is likely to sell it. I would of course agree that this does not PROVE anything. How can it when the books of some of the parties are still opaque, and audits rarely conducted to verify ownership. But after what we have just seen over the last three years in these games of asset merry-go-round, how can anyone just blatantly dismiss that can and likely is happening, where there is an easy profit to be made. Especially considering the past history of transactions between the bullion banks and the central banks.

Personally I would view this report as bullish for the price of gold, since it is past history, and almost certainly an indication of concerns about Comex offtake. In other words, shortages are appearing, and fresh sources of bullion are becoming increasingly difficult to find.

John Brimelow reports that:

"The news of the day, of course, was the discovery by the Virtual Metals analyst (Matthew Turner) that the BIS engaged in what appears to have been the biggest gold swap in history prior to the end of their FY end on March 31st.

Thebulliondesk.com (first of the wire services to report) says:

“In its 2010 annual report, the BIS said that "gold, which the bank held in connection with gold swap operations, under which the bank exchanges currencies for physical gold," stands at 8,160.1 million in special drawing rights, equivalent to 346 tonnes this year, up from nil in 2009.

While the data is relevant to the end of BIS’ 2010 financial year in March, data posted to the International Monetary Fund and carried by Bloomberg show the swap still growing in April, analyst Andy Smith of Bache Commodities noted.

To now, this implies a swap of about 380 tonnes from the end of 2009, he said in a report.”

The new Washington Agreement, which started at the end of last September, allowed signatories to engage in gold derivative transactions for the first time in a decade. Very convenient.

Although none of the major bullion banks (actual or potential CB counterparties) will want to discuss this, the high probability is that much of this gold was actually sold into the market. Very likely this accounts for the contra-seasonal slump of gold in December, which it will be recalled was neither preceded by the usual loss of physical premiums nor accompanied by the usual open interest action.

This in effect means the end of the Washington Agreement restraint on CB gold selling, at a time when several signatories are in bad shape. Most likely this is what caused the selling pressure in gold today, especially after the NY open."

As we have most recently seen with the bloated CDS and CDO credit markets, long standing control frauds can cause quite a splash when they inevitably collapse. We need to bear this in mind when the governments start making their excuses, once again, for taking the 'necessary actions' to support the banks for the good of the people, from whom they have once again stolen billions to provide a fat living for their friends and themselves.

I have been wondering, as I am sure that you have as well, Why Now? Why did the IMF and BIS 'throw the kitchen sink' at the gold bullion market at this particular time?

I think the answer can be found in the setup of the market. Gold was knocking on the door of resistance at $1260, a key point that could have triggered a break away rally. At the same time, according to figures provided in his daily Comex commentary, there were an extraordinary number of contracts standing for delivery in silver and especially gold. Indeed, if the numbers are correct, a breakaway rally would have encouraged almost 2 million ounces of gold to be demanded of the Comex, a call on their 2.64 million ounces of dealer supply that could have literally 'broken the bank.'

As Volcker and Greenspan have both said, the central banks must stand ready to sell gold into the market to prevent its price from rising and displacing the confidence of the markets in the power of the central banks to manage their currency markets.

Economists are debating the reason why individuals and businesses are saving, and not spending money as a response to the Federal Reserve programs.

Here is a comment I wrote in response to an essay by Brad DeLong in the recent issue of The Economist, Why Are Firms Saving So much? I am not editing it here, and since it was done as an only draft, please bear with its somewhat raw form.

"Private firms and individuals are saving too much. DeLong seems to think they are being irrational, because they are doing so out of fear of a commercial credit crunch.

I think this is partly true. But some of the savings activity by companies (and individuals) is obviously because they are not seeing the turnaround in the economy that would give them the confidence to build up their capacity and inventories. They clearly fear another downturn based on what they are seeing.

Now, Mr. DeLong dismisses this, presumably because there is a central bank called the Fed, and it owns a printing press, and stands ready as a lender of last resort.

I think businesses know this, and the attitude and condescension is wholly unnecessary and distracting from the real issue.

Businesses, and individuals, simply do not believe that the Fed is interested in them, as opposed to let's say, the too big to fail banks. For whatever reason, Bernanke has blown his credibility, and done so most likely by talking a better game than he has played as the lender of last resort to the general economy, and not to a select circle of cronies, among which are not the local and regional banks, and certainly not commercial business.

The other fact, although I confess that I cannot prove it with data, is that the banks have troubles of their own, and prefer to use a portion of their funds for speculation, especially those TBTF fellows who are sitting on a lot of dodgy paper.

And finally, what has really changed in an economy that was almost wholly dependent on stock bubbles and mortgage fraud, and a consumer saturated with debt?

So, history stories notwithstanding, the solution to this might be a little closer to home than one might imagine otherwise from reading Mr. DeLong.

The efforts of the Fed and Treasury have NOT been focused on the locus of commercial transactions between private companies and individuals. Rather they have been preoccupied with the speculation in financial derivatives and paper assets that have little or no real connection anymore to the economy. So how can one even wonder that the people have lost faith in this effort?

Only if one assumes that they are irrational fools, incapable of understanding economics because they, after all, lack the necessary credentials and PhD's, as the Federal Reserve fellow so recently observed."

Despite all their dissembling and market antics, I think the Fed's worst fears are coming true. The people of the US are losing confidence in the Federal Reserve and its economic policies, and those of the Treasury which has badly mishandled the banking crisis. The problem is that Washington is talking to New York, and assuming the rest of the country will accept whatever it is they choose to do.

Crunch time is coming, and it will not be pretty. A loss of confidence and a hoarding of funds in savings is a prelude to Gresham's Law, and the first whiff of what I would have never expected could occur: hyper-inflation, preceded by a terrific market crash in late September. That is just how bad that the policy errors of Summers and Bernanke have been, and how badly the Congressional plutocrats have misunderstood the will of the people and failed to enact reforms.

It is going to be a long, hot summer.

Never Fear, BIS is Here...

The Irish gnome checks in from Heidi-land:

…and these are the guys supposedly supervising the whole Global Casino!

Monetary and financial stability implications of capital flows in Latin America and the Caribbean
BIS Papers No 43
November 2008

Central Bank participants at the BIS 2008 Open Economies Meeting in Punta del Este, Uruguay, discussed trends in capital flows since 2003 and their monetary and financial stability implications.

Capital flows appear to be more benign today than in the past, partly because of a greater share of foreign direct investment and reduced reliance on foreign financing that has contributed to improvements in international investment positions (IIPs).

Participants held the view that the economies in the region had become more resilient. For instance, although currency and maturity mismatches are still a concern in some countries, they appear to be less relevant today than in the past.

The recent shift in the global financial environment and its regional implications were also discussed. Notwithstanding continuing concerns about risks, the impact of the financial turmoil at the time of the meeting was still limited. Indeed, there was more concern with the risks of a global slowdown than with direct financial contagion.

What would it take to shake these bureaucrats up? A direct meteor impact on their refreshments table? Or a downgrade to economy class?