For many years now, a meme has been floating around that the prices
of gold and silver are being manipulated, which is to say suppressed, by
various powers of darkness. This is not an unreasonable assertion.
After all, the last thing the monetary powers-that-be want is to see is
the price of gold skyrocketing. That would serve as an alarm bell,
possibly panicking people all over the world, telling them to get out of
the dollar. It’s assumed, by those who believe in the theory, that the
US Treasury is behind the suppression scheme, in complicity with a
half-dozen or so large bullion banks that regularly trade in the metals.
The assertion is bolstered by the fact that governments in general,
and the US in particular, are always intervening in all kinds of
markets. They try to control the price of wheat and corn with various
USDA programs. They manifestly manipulate the price of credit (interest
rates), now keeping it as low as possible to stave off financial
collapse. And they may well be active, through the so-called Plunge
Protection Team, in propping up the stock market. They were largely
responsible for the boom in property, through numerous programs and
parastatals like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why, therefore, shouldn’t
they also be involved in the monetary metals? Central banks regularly
intervene in (i.e., manipulate) each others’ currencies. So it’s not
unreasonable to imagine they’d try to manipulate gold as well.
In fact, the US and other governments did try to suppress the gold
price from 1961 to 1968 through what was known as the London Gold Pool.
The US alone persisted in trying to do so until Nixon devalued the
dollar and closed the gold window in 1971.
But if it was ever doable, that was the time. Although nobody knows
exactly how much gold there is above ground, a reasonable guess might be
six billion ounces. There was a possibility of controlling the price,
in the days of the London Gold Pool, when there were only three billion
ounces in existence and when all the gold in the world was worth only
$105 billion ($35 x 3 billion = $105 billion).
Today, however, the value of the world’s gold is around $10 trillion
($1,650 x 6 billion = $10 trillion), nearly 100 times as much. And
governments own about a billion ounces, only 16% of it, whereas the last
time they tried to control the price they owned about 1.1 billion
ounces, which was about 35% of the world supply. And the governments,
their central banks and almost all large commercial banks are bankrupt;
they have vastly less financial power than they did in the days of the
London Gold Pool. Why would they try to do something that’s so obviously
a losing game?
I’m not at all disinclined to believe tales of manipulation of
markets by the state; I expect it, and as a speculator I relish it. But I
like to see evidence for everything. And extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary evidence. I’ve read the stuff these guys have written for
years and have seen nothing but strident assertions and accusations. I’m
completely willing to believe central bankers are capable of any kind
of nefarious foolishness, but I’d like to see proof. I’m constantly
reading assertions of how “the boys” come along at “precisely” 1p.m. or 2
p.m. or perhaps “precisely” 11:37 a.m. or 12:16 p.m. and, on a purely
not-for-profit basis, decide to “smack down” the market for gold or
silver or both. Meanwhile the market has been hitting new highs for a
dozen years.
As you might imagine, I know most of the believers in the precious
metals manipulation theories personally and am only a phone call or
email away from those I don’t know. And I’m curious. So I ask questions
of these folks, who are generally intelligent, well informed and
sophisticated. But I don’t get answers that I find make sense. There
have been readily identifiable reasons for other government
manipulations in the past. It’s obvious why a government wants low
interest rates. It’s obvious why they want high real estate and stock
markets. But why – in today’s world – would they really want to spend
billions keeping gold (or especially silver) down? You’d think they
might have tried to control the price of uranium when it ran to $140 a
few years ago. Or perhaps the price of sugar when it ran to 28 cents
last year; everybody uses sugar.
Despite the fact that gold can act as an alarm bell, few Americans – or anyone, for that matter – among the hoi polloi
care or even know the stuff exists except as an academic matter.
Suppressing the gold price is not only vastly harder but much less
important than it was during the last market.
Here are some questions I’d like answered:
Q: Why do these banks (JPMorgan, etc.) even give a damn, in the first place, what the price of the metals might be?
The only reason that makes any sense is that they are acting as
proxies for the US Treasury; the Treasury doesn’t go into the markets
itself. But does it direct a commercial bank to act for it to buy or
sell gold? It might. But there’s zero proof of any sort it’s doing that.
These banks have no dog in the fight; they couldn’t care less what
the metals prices are and have no reason to try manipulating the market.
Q: Why has there been zero word from their traders
about how stupid their bosses are for fighting a gigantic 10-year bull
market? These guys all know each other, and they gossip with the same
delight as teenage girls.
It’s hard to keep a long-term illegal collusion a secret. Two parties
might possibly be able to keep a secret. But six or eight commercial
banks acting in broad daylight? It’s said that three individuals can
keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead. But for a half-dozen
trading operations to do so? Wall Street is the world’s greatest rumor
mill. But there’s never been a rumor (outside of those created in
conspiracy circles, who offer no sources) that the bullion banks are
acting, in concert or individually, as agents of Timmy Geithner.
Q: If, as alleged, these banks have been short gold
from the bottom of the gold bear market at $255 in 2001 and the silver
bear market at $4.25, also in 2001, how can they possibly absorb tens or
hundreds of billions of losses? Did they expect to take the metals to a
fraction of their 1971 lows?
Trading desks make mistakes. But they don’t stay short in one of
history’s great bull markets – it’s not the way traders earn bonuses.
How stupid are the supposed “not for profit” sellers of gold supposed to
be?
Q: Exactly where and how do they supposedly get the
capital to cover these losses? Haven’t they ever heard the old saw, “He
who sells what isn’t his’n must give it back or go to prison”? No bank
can tie up billions in capital fighting the market for a decade.
Q: Exactly who originated this idea of trying to suppress prices using the futures markets?
Here a well-known writer on this subject suggested the following to
me, via an email, when I asked: “The big commercials, starting some 25
years ago, discovered they could dominate the market and force technical
traders in and out of the market when they wished at great profits to
the commercials. But they miscalculated and stayed in too long, and now
they are trapped.”
I don’t buy that explanation for several reasons. Of course the big
guys, like commercials, are always bullying small speculators. The small
guys use technical trading systems, which make it easy to figure out
where they’re buying and selling. Small traders are always minutes
behind the market. And small traders usually use way too much margin, so
they’re prone to being squeezed and panicked. This has always been
true, not just for the last 25 years. It’s part of why small traders are
notorious for losing. The commercials are typically on the other side
of the trade.
But one thing is for certain: nobody (certainly not commercials)
allows himself to get in so deep he’s trapped for 12 years in one of
history’s greatest bull markets.
Q: Why fight the market, and get trapped, in just
gold and silver? Why aren’t they trying to suppress copper, platinum and
palladium as well? For that matter, every commodity?
I don’t credit the people who run central banks or national
treasuries with a great deal of financial acumen; they’re basically just
political hacks, flunkies that went to “good” schools, dress well and
like feeling important in a safe niche in the bureaucracy. But they
don’t want to lose their jobs by being that wrong for that long.
Q: Why would the US Treasury (if it’s behind a gold
suppression scheme) make things easier for the Chinese, the Russians,
the Indians and numerous other developing countries by suppressing the
gold price? They simply take advantage of the lower price to buy more.
The arguments for suppression of gold make very little sense when you
examine them. The arguments for silver make absolutely no sense at all;
it’s a tiny market that nobody cares about except for silver fanatics,
who treat it like a religious icon. That said, I’m at least as bullish
on silver as gold – but a discussion of that will have to wait.
If anyone could answer these questions, I’d appreciate it. I advise
readers to buy gold – even at current levels – but I’d like to see them
do it for the right reasons. And it seems to me the arguments about gold
manipulation are more redolent of religious belief than economic
reasoning.