Lions and Tigers and Deriding the Theory of Gold Tightness At the Comex, Oh My!

“Our clients will call up saying ‘I hear the Comex is running out of gold, what do you make of it?’ and our quick answer is that this is a non-issue,” Jeffrey Christian, managing director at CPM Group, said in a telephone interview.

“Even if you look at the fact that registered stocks have declined, the fact of the matter is most Comex futures contracts” are cash-settled, and traders don’t take delivery of the metal, he said.

While the percentage of Comex gold open interest covered by total Comex reported stocks has fallen over the past year and a half, it “remains very high by historical standards and presents no perceptible risk of imminent problems with deliveries,” CPM Group said in a report dated Sept. 14...

Barclays Plc said in a report this week that emerging-market demand for gold has shifted some metal into Asia, and that “coverage of physical stocks in Comex remains solid.”

Joe Deaux, Gold Shortage Theory Derided as Comex Seen Well Supplied, Bloomberg News, Sept 16, 2015


“Anything that has more upside than downside from random events (or certain shocks) is antifragile; the reverse is fragile.”

Nassim Taleb, Antifragile

Gold is anti-fragile. This is why it must be handled with care, and not with fragile systems. Gold is intractable to the kinds of manipulation by the financial system that can bend paper to its will. This is why they hate gold, and seek to paper over it with leverage and secrecy.

Above is a commentary on the physical bullion situation at the Comex as it was reported at Bloomberg News yesterday.   The 'deriding', which means ridicule and contempt, is coming from CPM group's Jeff Christian, and from a report from Barclays.

The title of the article is a bit odd, because I have not see any 'theories' about this subject at least here, just presentations of the facts using exchange provided information.  And as for deriding, it seems more like a sign of weakness and fear than solid reassurance.  But that is just my own experience in seeing that sort of thing when someone points out a changing situation that could pose a problem.

One thing the story fails to make clear is that only registered gold is deemed deliverable to fulfill futures contracts.  Yes, all the gold in all the warehouses could potentially satisfy demand, IF IT WAS UP FOR SALE.   But it is not.

The total supplies at the Comex have as much to do with the current demand for bullion as all the automobiles in your neighborhood have on the price that you are going to pay tomorrow for a used car, eg. the calculation cannot include items that are not up for sale.  Yes there are many cars that would satisfy your requirements.   But only those that are for sale are available for you to drive home.

Jeff Christian says that "even if you look at the fact that registered stocks have declined..."

Yes, 'even if' you look at the heart of the argument, 'registered stocks have declined,' and that is quite the understatement of the facts.

Here is the history of 'registered gold bullion' on the Comex going back to 2001.

And of course if almost no one asks for any of the gold, then there is no problem.   Yep.

This is the problem. For anything except speculating with paper the Comex is now significantly fragile, moreso than at any time it has been in the last twenty years at least.

Jeff goes on to say that "most Comex futures contracts” are cash-settled, and traders don’t take delivery of the metal,"

And that is correct.  Here is the history of deliveries, ignoring any cash settlements, on the exchange.

As should be easy to see, the amount of gold bullion deliveries is declining quite a bit.

The Comex lacks the market discipline of delivery of the goods and restraint on the potential hypothecation of available supply.  What is acting to hold leverage to some reasonable level other than 'nothing has broken yet.'

Let's take a quick look at the ratio of total contracts to registered gold, that is gold up for sale.

The Comex is a significant price discovery market for the global gold supply.  The data shows that it has diverged significantly from the physical bullion markets primarily in Asia.

While the inventories at the Comex remain flat overall and declining sharply with regard to deliverable bullion, the physical deliveries of gold into India and China are increasing steadily.

And I hasten to remind everyone that gold is truly a global market.

Nick Laird at sharelynx.com has created chart that tracks the known physical gold demand for what he calls 'The Silk Road.'

Even though I do not expect a default at Comex, as I have said many times before, the point is that if there is even a mild problem in one of the physical markets in Asia or London, the Comex is price positioned for a market dislocation and potential fails to deliver bullion on request.

The deliverable gold is a little under 6 tonnes.  But even if price were no object, the total gold held in private hands in all the Comex warehouses is about 6,716,000 troy ounces, or roughly 209 tonnes. That is all of it no matter who owns it or why.

Or less than one month's supply for the Silk Road countries.

Normally none of this *should* be problem, although one has to admit that according to historical norms the amount of deliverable gold is very thin by any measure.  Why is this?  Why are the better informed withdrawing their bullion from the deliverable category?  I read that they are afraid of the bullion being caught in a 'short squeeze,' but the trader who said that did not specify a short squeeze where.

This week I learned from an interview with Jim Rickards that some very large bullion banks were said to be using the Comex gold futures to hedge shorts in bullion delivery markets in London, called the LBMA.

That kind of a hedge might work to guard against paper losses, but against a genuine fail to deliver in a physical market you can see that the immediate deliverables at these prices are about 6 tonnes, which is a rounding error on the Silk Road.

It's the fragility, always the fragility.

What if something that is not completely normal and expected happens?  What if, instead of 2% of the contracts asking for delivery, a delivery short squeeze in London prompts 4 or 5 percent of the contract holders to attempt to exercise their contracts to receive physical bullion to cover their obligations elsewhere?

The fragility of such an arrangement is bothersome to anyone from outside who looks at it from a systems engineering perspective.

If some firms are using the Comex as a backup system for gold deliveries in London and points east, it is hardly equipped to take that role without a significant market dislocation in price.

If I was only working short term trades and would never mind a settlement in cash, then the Comex seems like a fine place to do the trade.

However, if my goal is to have a solid claim on physical bullion, even within some reasonable length of time measured in several months, it does not appear that the Comex is appropriate for that particular objective.

Do you see the potential problem here that is so blithely 'derided?'

I do not wish to alarm anyone. I am putting out the word because I do not think people understand the situation that has developed, over the past two years in particular, as shown by the potential claims per ounce.

Globally huge market with increasing demand, a market where the available inventories are exceptionally thin, and a price that is derived without a tight rein on leverage and the discipline of delivery. What could possibly go wrong?

The usual retort is 'it has not broken yet.' Yes, and in the light of our experience over the past ten years or so, some might find rather thin comfort in that.  The important thing is for traders and investors to be fully informed,  that they may use financial instrument in a manner that is appropriate to their objectives.

For example, using Comex as a backup for bullion positions on the LBMA might be fine, if you are not expecting to receive delivery of bullion that can be used to satisfy your obligations there.

The exchange might consider another look at their rules in the light of this unusual 'leverage' of potential claims to bullion, rather than count on price fixing all problems, and few standing for delivery, especially in a changing and very dynamic global market.

I do not have good visibility into the leverage and available inventories at the LBMA in London.  If those are in any way similar to the Comex, then I would take some action fairly quickly to secure my ownership of bullion given the potential for a misstep that spins out of bounds.

If you hold an allocated receipt that is as 'good as gold?'  Tell that to the investors who used MF Global,  and found their holdings sorted out in court against a lawyered up megabank.

I do not know Jeff Christian or the fellow from Barclays.   I am sure that they have good reasons for what they are saying and the advice they appear to be giving to their customers.  I am sure they can all work out all their concerns and particular issues among themselves.

Objectives amongst customers do vary and it is the fiduciary duty of any advisor to help them make an appropriate choice.  And I can see many uses for Comex positions that are entirely suitable for some.   A short term trader for instance, who in merely placing wagers that he expects to settle for cash.

But as for this article in Bloomberg, it is a bit of a gloss, heavier on the deriding and short on information for readers to use in making their own informed decisions.  'Trust us' and 'nothing has broken yet' are, as I said previously, non-starters these days.

I have set forth only a few of the oddities that are becoming apparent in the gold market.  There are quite a few more, including backwardation and tightness in the London physical market as noted by Peter Hambro and an analyst at Mitsubishi recently, and in articles by Koos Jansen and Ronan Manly.

How about the pivotal London market, is it 'well-supplied?'  How well supplied is it?  What is the potential impact on the Comex of a bullion shortfall at the LBMA?

Jim Rickards had something to say about the LBMA and its relationship with the Comex recently.  You may read it in a larger commentary titled On the LBMA and Their Unallocated Holdings - 'Tightness' In Gold Bullion - Backwardation.

Has there ever been a 'stress test' of what it would be like at the Comex if there were an afternoon failure to deliver physical bullion in London?  Or are you assuming as your baseline that such a shortfall could never happen in any non-Comex market?  Is the process at Comex for some event like that, besides halting the exchange and forcing cash settlements?

I do think that one can become so involved in a system, for so long a period, that when it changes, when the market dynamics start shifting, the old hands may be the last to notice the forest for all those familiar trees.  That is why companies bring in quality teams to inspect their processes for soundness and failure points.

What could have possibly changed in the global gold market in the past few years.  "Barclays Plc said in a report this week that emerging-market demand for gold has shifted some metal into Asia,"

How about this?  Some shift.  Some metal.

Here is what Kyle Bass recently had to say about the situation.  Maybe you can 'deride' him. Then again, maybe not.

Gold Daily and Silver Weekly Charts - Timely Caution Is Advisable

The Fed did nothing today, except note that there are problems in the rest of the world, but everything here is fine.   Nevertheless in the spirit of noblesse oblige the Fed has condescended not to raise its benchmark rate by 25 basis points.  It's good to be the king.

And after they did nothing, the dollar fell sharply, stocks staged a spectacular rally with an even more spectacular retracement to finish negative, and of course the precious metals took off for a little run higher.

That was quite a bit of action for something that 'everybody knew.'

The skeptical me is pretty much ignoring the Fed at this point except for the diversion of seeing them trying to wriggle out of the corner into which they have painted themselves.  On one hand they say all is well, and on the other they would dearly like to get off the zero bound but cannot find the traction to do it, amidst all this lousy economic data.

And so they do nothing, and blame China or the weather or anything else but their own monetary fan service for the libertines of Wall Street.

A more interesting development to me at least is in the precious metals market.

I know there are some who are more than glad to just discount all of it as business as usual, but I do not think the data supports that premise.

That does not preclude the possibility that the bullion banks may wriggle and bluff their way out of this one, again, most likely with the help of some friendly central banks leasing out more physical bullion on the cheap, again.  But the general trend of what I have come to call 'the gold pool' is not promising, and could prove to be of some more than passing interest to us.

To that end I put out a briefing overnight titled Timely Caution Is Advisable With Your Gold Holdings with a companion piece, On the LBMA and Their Unallocated Holdings .

You may wish to read them both carefully. With regard to the latter, someone forwarded an email message from Jim Rickards that says "Jesse has this right."

More importantly I hope Jim R. has it right, since he has much better sources of information.

Here is a thumbnail sketch of the situation.

There is an unusual amount of extra leverage in the precious metals,  not only in the Comex but apparently in the LBMA.   The London market is the more important echange because it is the bullion gateway to the East and a more physical exchange by design, despite the recent rigging scandals there which are apparently not fully resolved in transparency.

It is thought that some very serious players may have been found offsides and badly short of physical bullion in London, thanks to their usual gambling antics and the inexhaustible bullion maws of Asia.

And the problem may be even worse because not only are these players short, but on the whole the exchange itself is tight on the old claim checks to items counts.  In other words, the bullion may not even be there at the current prices.  Even in a fairly big pond the whales can make waves.

Comex is easy to manage, because it is more of a betting shop, dominated by a few players who are willing to cash settle, whether by design or professional courtesy.  Although this does allow for some oddities in the reports that everyone is urged to ignore because 'you just don't understand.'

And in that vein we had almost no 'deliveries' at The Bucket Shop yesterday, but the warehouses continue to mark a steady bleeding out of physical bullion.   Along with the Western ETFs and Funds by the way.  Nothing of note there, move along.

Today's move higher in metals prices was a good start to clearing up any short term inconveniences in supply, but it may have to go a bit higher, like a hundred dollars or so at least.  Unthinkable!

And it would be a good time to remind everyone that gold itself does not vary, but the prices of other currencies including the dollar are fluctuating against it.  Gold has preeminence as a currency because in its physical form it bears no counterparty risk.

And gold has been rallying against a broad set of other currencies for a while now, but not so much the dollar.

Caution in uncertainty is not a bad course of action.  Especially when the only certainty is change, and the gales of November come early.

Have a pleasant evening.

SP 500 and NDX Futures Daily Charts - More of the Ineffective Sameness

“Since the 1980s, we have given the rich a bigger slice of our pie in the belief that they would create more wealth, making the pie bigger than otherwise possible in the long run. The rich got the bigger slice of the pie all right, but they have actually reduced the pace at which the pie is growing...

Once you realize that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are—  a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer, as we were told...

We need to design an economic system that, while acknowledging that people are often selfish, exploits other human motives to the full and gets the best out of people. The likelihood is that, if we assume the worst about people, we will get the worst out of them.”

Ha-Joon Chang, University of Cambridge

As you may have gathered, the Fed did nothing in particular today.

They did give a nod to the rest of the world however, with this sentence in their policy statement.

"Recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term."

When it is not the Winter, it's China and/or market volatility.

It is always something but certainly no fault on the might FOMC, font of wisdom, paragon of virtue.

There was some intraday commentary on the Fed here and here.

The Fed's policy errors might be more interesting to watch if one was not within the blast radius of their many abuses of the real economy.   Unfortunately with their finger on the trigger of the world's reserve currency, there are not as many places to hide as there may have been before.

I just love all this talk of the 'tight labor market' with Labor Participation at multi-decade lows and record levels of child poverty, among other things.  You have to ask, do these people really believe what they are saying?  And if so, is that even more frightening than if they were just being politically expedient?

Have a pleasant evening.

Why the Fed's Policy Actions Are Not Working

“Trickle-down theory - the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

John Kenneth Galbraith

As I said earlier today in a reaction to the FOMC announcement:

"This is all a bit moot really, because except for the betting parlors it doesn't matter whether the Fed raises 25 basis points or not. You can print money and give it to the banking system and the very wealthy for their personal gambling and asset acquisitions activities all day long.

The system is broken, the real product of the nation has been hijacked by financialization, the international monetary exchange is in chaos, and almost all of the gains are going to the top.

And the Fed and the government are doing virtually nothing to change this."

The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be an sustainable recovery.

And keep the financial system on life support while the rest of the economy languishes, the poor suffer, and the middle class deteriorates is not coherent, except for a narrow band of beneficiaries.

Let us be reminded that the Fed is also a primary regulator of the financial system as well as an interest rate joystick operator.

And the mainstream media and the politicians wonder why the public is not doing what they expect.

This chart below is from Bloomberg News, The Richest Americans Are Winning the Economic Recovery.

"U.S. Census Bureau data out Wednesday underscore just how lousy the recovery has been if you aren't rich.
Looking at eight groups of household income selected by Census, only those whose incomes are already high to begin with have seen improvement since 2006, the last full year of expansion before the recession. Households at the 95th and 90th percentiles had larger earnings through 2014, the latest year for which data are available.

Income for all others was below 2006 levels, indicating they're still clawing their way out of the hole caused by the deepest recession in the post-World War II era."

And this result, after eight years of some of the biggest expansion of a central bank balance sheet in US history!

NAV Premiums of Precious Metal Trusts and Funds

If you are curious about the additional data on the top right of the spreadsheet, this is just the way in which I am tracking the market reaction to the Sprott offer for an exchange of PHYS for GTU.

As you can see the Sprott offer is almost spot on to a NAV/NAV calculation. There is a slight premium on Price/Price because of the greater discounting of GTU in its market price.

On this I am not accounting for any risks or expenses, merely the nominal market reaction.

The gold/silver ratio remains historically high at 73ish. I suspect that this is because the metals are enjoying a 'flight to safety' more than 'inflation being driven by a robust economy.' But it could be something else.

Fed Does Nothing, Lacker Dissents - And the Band Played On

All is well in the US. The rest of the world, however, is a problem.

Explication to follow with Janet Yellen's press conference.

In their separate economic projections statement they appear to have lowered their inflation expectations.

Given their track record on forecasting I think this is more of a Rorschach test than a reliable guide to the future.

We're in the new normal of high employment, low wages, sluggish growth, and slack inflation.

And we're are doing just fine.   Depending on how you define 'we.'

Even though the Bloombergians were later laughing at this, I tend to lean towards Ray Dalio's prognosis.

“I don’t care whether they raise 25 basis points,” Dalio said Wednesday in an interview with Tom Keene and Michael McKee that was broadcast on Bloomberg radio and television. “What scares me, or what worries me, is what the next downturn in the economy looks like, with asset prices where they are and a lesser ability of central banks to ease monetary policy.”

He predicted that returns across asset classes over the next decade will only average 3 percent or 4 percent. Narrower spreads will make it much harder for asset purchases to have a big effect on the market, he said."

This is all a bit moot really, because except for the betting parlors it doesn't matter whether the Fed raises 25 basis points or not.  You can print money and give it to the banking system all day long.

The system is broken, the real product of the nation has been hijacked by financialization, the international monetary exchange is in chaos, and almost all of the gains are going to the top. And the Fed and the government are doing virtually nothing to change this.

And the band played on.

Release Date: September 17, 2015

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in July suggests that economic activity is expanding at a moderate pace. Household spending and business fixed investment have been increasing moderately, and the housing sector has improved further; however, net exports have been soft. The labor market continued to improve, with solid job gains and declining unemployment. On balance, labor market indicators show that underutilization of labor resources has diminished since early this year. Inflation has continued to run below the Committee's longer-run objective, partly reflecting declines in energy prices and in prices of non-energy imports. Market-based measures of inflation compensation moved lower; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. Recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term. Nonetheless, the Committee expects that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, with labor market indicators continuing to move toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate. The Committee continues to see the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced but is monitoring developments abroad. Inflation is anticipated to remain near its recent low level in the near term but the Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent over the medium term as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of declines in energy and import prices dissipate. The Committee continues to monitor inflation developments closely.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen some further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term.

The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee's holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.

When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Dennis P. Lockhart; Jerome H. Powell; Daniel K. Tarullo; and John C. Williams. Voting against the action was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who preferred to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points at this meeting.