8:14p ET Thursday, August 23, 2001

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

John Hathaway of the Tocqueville Gold Fund, probably as 
respected a figure in the gold market as there is, has 
come over fully to the GATA side with his latest essay, 
"Gold As Theater," which appears below, though without 
the charts it refers to, since they can't be reproduced
in this format.

All by itself Hathaway's essay may strike a huge blow 
against the gold-price suppression scheme, since the 
more people realize that real gold is scarce -- not 
plentiful, as falsely suggested by the commodities 
exchange prices under the influence of central bank
gold lending -- the more pressure will be placed on 
the physical gold market to produce real gold for
private investors.

GATA supporters may especially enjoy Hathaway's rebuke 
of the World Gold Council for its promotion of gold as 
jewelry and its neglect of gold as money. Of course 
you've heard that here a few times before.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

* * *

Gold as Theater  

By John Hathaway 
Tocqueville Securities L.P. 
www.Tocqueville.com 
August 23, 2001 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

At precisely 1:57 p.m. on May 23rd, 2001, a seller 
dumped 100 contracts (10,000 ounces) of gold on the 
Comex market. The transaction was noteworthy as to the 
amount and timing. It was the largest transaction by 
far that day and for several weeks on the Comex where 
trading activity has dwindled to the lowest levels in 
two decades. More important, it took place 15 minutes 
in advance of the announcement by the Federal Reserve 
that the discount rate would be reduced by only 25 
basis points instead of the 50 that had been widely 
speculated.

Gold, which had been rallying strongly since the stock 
market lows at the end of the first quarter on the view 
that the Federal Reserve's concern over the economy's 
slide was reaching panic proportions, slumped during 
the remainder of the day. In a few more days, it 
settled at $265/oz, down sharply from the intra day 
peak of nearly $300 reached on May 21st, a few days 
before the Fed action. 

[CHART OMITTED HERE] 

The above chart is a minute by minute account of Comex 
gold trading going into the Fed announcement at 2:15 
(14:15). On the lower part of the chart, volume for 
each trade is graphed. The trade in question took place 
just before 2:00 pm (14:00), and initiated the 
breakdown of gold. The seller, whoever it was, seemed 
to be acting on the conviction of advance knowledge. 
For anyone willing to spend the time, more about the 
identity of the seller could be learned by examining 
the public records of the Comex for that day's trading. 
I'd love to know, but don't have the time to go to the 
warehouse and pore through trade records. Whether it 
was the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) of the 
Treasury or a bullion dealer with a hot line to the Fed 
Conference room is of secondary importance. 

If it were a bullion dealer for its own account, the 
profits on the trade would hardly pay the rent. If it 
were a bullion dealer for the account of a third party 
such as the ESF, we may never know. What is more 
interesting is the apparent use of gold to convey a 
message to the markets: Gold tanks!� The Fed has 
everything under control�concerns reflected in the 
previous gold rally have been allayed. Gold remains a 
highly visible barometer of the well being of financial 
markets, despite concerted efforts by central banks to 
demote its standing as a financial asset. In a private 
meeting in June 1993, the late Sir Jimmy Goldsmith 
asked me whether I thought his bullish stance on gold 
at the time was correct. Yes, I answered. We agreed 
that paper currencies were suspect and that the rising 
gold price signaled legitimate concerns. He responded 
with a question: "But what happens if the authorities 
try to squash the signal?" 

In retrospect, this was not only an excellent question, 
but quite possibly foreshadowed what has been going on 
in the gold market since then. The trade on May 21st 
illustrates how a well-timed minor action in a very 
thin market, can turn the tide. It is only a skirmish 
in a very big picture. By itself, it proves nothing, 
but it does suggest something. Government intervention 
in financial markets is neither surprising nor new. 
Gold is a financial asset. 

Official denials notwithstanding, respected and 
knowledgeable observers including Jack Kemp and 
Professor Robert Mundell appear to regard it as a 
matter of fact. On August 21st, the date of the most 
recent Fed rate cut, a similar pattern could be 
observed. This time, Goldman Sachs appeared as a 
featured seller in the midday hours prior to the 
announcement. Of the 24,000 contracts traded that day, 
Goldman accounted for 10,000. A Comex floor trader told 
me, the following day, that there had been a very large 
drawdown of Comex warehouse stocks of 45,000+ ounces, 
the same day as the Fed announcement. The drawdown 
amounted to more than 5% and left the ratio of 
warehouse stocks to open interest at a dangerously low 
6% (ratio of physical to outstanding contracts), 
normally a good precursor for a short squeeze. 

However, the trader continued, in recent years it has 
not been profitable to anticipate a short squeeze under 
these circumstances. "Metal just comes back into the 
market mysteriously", he said. On the day of this 
particular conversation (8/22), "every dealer is 
selling, including Republic, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and JP 
Morgan-Chase. 

Action like today is what scares people away from the 
gold market. The dollar is getting crushed, a short 
squeeze should be happening, and gold does nothing." 
The price of gold in perpetual checkmate became a 
central motif in the mythology of the new economic 
paradigm. The imagery played a role in facilitating the 
investment bubble that ended over a year ago. The 
evolution of the financial markets has diminished the 
role and effectiveness of traditional monetary policy. 
The Fed no longer controls the monetary aggregates and 
now only has a direct influence on interest rates. 
Tinkering with the gold price would be a very tempting 
way to reinforce the strong dollar rhetoric. 

It would be simply shocking, even inconceivable if no 
high level official had ever considered the idea. 

A low or declining gold price would soothe financial 
markets and, conversely, a rapidly rising price would 
roil them. The price behavior of gold is a simple sound 
byte able to penetrate the increasingly confusing 
overload of electronic inputs and media circus 
confronting traders and investors. It is a much more 
efficient way to communicate a state of being than the 
inscrutable or indecipherable pronouncements of various 
economic policy spokesmen, especially for grass roots 
consumption. 

The behavior of gold, notwithstanding repeated attempts 
to write it out of the script, still affects market and 
consumer psychology. Legions comforted by the 
somnolence of the gold price assume that such behavior 
is the result of a free market process. The history of 
government intervention in currency markets alone would 
strongly suggest otherwise. 

The precedent of the London Gold Pool, a scheme 
orchestrated by the US and Britain to rig the gold 
price in the 1960's, exemplifies the keen interest of 
our government in the matter. For these reasons alone, 
believers in whatever low gold prices are signaling 
should suspect a fairy tale. Given the long history of 
official sector antipathy to gold, especially in the US 
and the UK, one would be hard pressed to explain why it 
had suddenly become sacrosanct. 

In fact, there is growing body of credible evidence 
that the US government and others may have been 
manipulating the metal price for some time. A few years 
ago, such claims were unsubstantiated and lacked 
credibility, but recently some weighty evidence is 
beginning to accumulate. Credit for the heavy lifting 
on discovery of possible price fixing activity goes to 
Bill Murphy, Reginald Howe, James Turk and their 
associates. A useful source to learn more are the two 
Gold Antitrust Action Committee web sites: 
(www.lemetropolecafe.com) or (www.gata.org). 

The Exchange Stabilization Fund controlled by the US 
Treasury, and essentially unaccountable to Congress or 
the American people, appears to be a key instrument for 
intervention. It appears that US gold reserves have 
been swapped or in some way encumbered. The basis for 
this supposition can be found in the ESF financial 
statements themselves. 

According to James Turk in his Freemarket Gold & 
Money Report (www.fgmr.com) dated August 13th, 2001, 
SDR Certificates held by the ESF declined from a peak 
level of 10.2 billion to 2.2 billion as of year end 
2000. A precipitous decline from 9.2 billion as of 
year-end 1998 to current levels coincided with an 
accelerated decline in the gold price that began in May 
1999 (announcement of UK Gold Auction) and the breakout 
of the trade weighted dollar index from a multiyear 
trading range. Each SDR represents 1/35th/oz of gold 
held by the Treasury as monetary reserves for the 
United States. What is going on here? Mr. Turk's very 
erudite but complex explanation of the mechanics is 
available on his web page. A decline equating to 227.7 
million ounces, or 87% of the US gold reserve demands a 
more than perfunctory explanation. Reg Howe 
(www.goldensextant.com/commentary18.html) has turned up 
a number of curious efforts to reclassify various 
portions of the gold reserve. 

These reclassification attempts have occurred only 
since Mr. Turk noticed that some of the gold held on 
deposit at West Point had been reclassified as 
custodial gold from gold bullion reserve as of 9/30/00. 
This designation stood until July 2, 2001 when the West 
Point gold along with 92% of US gold reserves or 245 
million ounces was again reclassified, this time as 
"Deep Storage Gold," peculiar to say the least. There 
has been no high level official response to these 
points or many others made by Howe, Turk, or GATA. 
There are only a few desultory low level denials 
including an almost generic e-mail denial on the 
Treasury's web site 
(www.treas.gov/opc/opc0007.html#gold%20markets). 

If the US and other governments have been actively 
involved in manipulating the gold market, there is far 
greater upside potential for the gold price than I had 
previously imagined. The US government may have already 
expended considerable resources to hold the gold price 
in check. 

Public, press, and congressional scrutiny of these 
matters should commence in earnest. It would have five 
possible outcomes: 

1) There is no monkey business at all and the 
government provides the requisite information to 
satisfy all legitimate questions on the subject. 

2) There has been active intervention but because of 
public scrutiny and accountability, carrying on will be 
much more difficult.

3) Resources for future intervention have been severely 
depleted. 

4) Because of a combination of 2 and 3, government 
activity in the gold market ceases altogether. 

5) There is something going on but the government is 
able to deflect and otherwise thwart all attempts to 
illuminate the facts. 

The investment implication of 1 is simply a non-event. 
The implications of 2, 3, and 4 are very bullish. Only 
5 would be somewhat problematic, as it would prolong 
the status quo. 

On his Golden Sextant web site (www.goldensextant.com), 
Reg Howe has unearthed an article co-authored by 
Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary and current 
President of Harvard University. The article, "Gibson's 
Paradox and the Gold Standard" was published in June 
1988 in the Journal of Political Economy. In this 
article, the two Professors observe that in a "truly 
free market�gold prices will move inversely to real 
long-term rates, falling when rates rise and rising 
when they fall." 

Most interesting is the failure of this relationship to 
persist post-1995 during Summers' tenure at the 
Treasury. "During this period, as real rates (30 year 
T-bond less CPI rate) have declined from the 4% level 
to near 2%, gold prices have fallen from $400/oz. to 
around $270 rather than rising toward the $500 level as 
Gibson's paradox and the model of it constructed by 
Barsky and Summers indicates they should have." Howe 
goes on to observe that "the low real long-term 
interest rates of the past few years may have been 
engineered with far more sophistication than those of a 
generation ago, including the coordinated and heavy use 
of both gold and interest rate derivatives."  

[CHART OMITTED HERE] 

This chart is courtesy of Nick Laird, proprietor of 
www.sharelynx.net. It plots average monthly gold prices 
inverted on the right scale and real long-term interest 
rates (30-year t-bond minus latest twelve month CPI) on 
the left scale. The historical relationship 
disintegrates in 1995. The mispricing of any commodity 
leads to a shortage or a surplus depending on whether 
it has been overpriced or underpriced relative to its 
clearing price in a free market. Investment capital is 
no less a commodity than soybeans, milk, or natural 
gas. The systematic underpricing of investment capital 
achieved by: 

-- the manipulation of the gold price. 

-- the debasement of inflation measuring statistics 
issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

-- the shrinkage of supply of 30-year treasuries. 

-- and the use of derivative instruments  would 
indeed be a "sophisticated" scheme. 

Much about this has been written including Grant's 
Interest Rate Observer and the Richebacher Letter spin 
and manipulation to achieve its goals. 

Academicians and politicians indifferent to the 
distinctions between substance and artifice, and with a 
shared disregard for free market forces, would be 
easily drawn into a complicated price manipulation 
scheme if it were deemed to be "in the public 
interest." 

Underpricing investment capital played a key role in 
creating the financial mania that explains willingness 
of investors to finance the dot com craze, telecom 
infrastructure companies with only a business plan, and 
other harebrained schemes too numerous to mention. The 
underpricing of investment capital occurred in the 
context of Greenspan's repeated willingness to commit 
sovereign credit throughout the market crises of the 
late 1980's and the entire decade of the 1990s. 

Since the Latin American Crises of the early 1980s, the 
Federal Reserve's response to anyone who had made a bad 
investment was a massive bailout. The 1987 market 
crash, the banking crisis of the late 1980s and early 
1990's, Long-Term Capital Management, and the Asia 
Meltdown all drew the same response -- a flood of 
liquidity and low interest rates. By sending the 
message that big mistakes would bear no adverse 
consequences, the Federal Reserve engineered a tectonic 
shift in the risk profile of investors, speculators, 
and financial institutions in favor of ever more 
leverage. It is the proliferation of leverage which has 
rendered the economic system intolerant of the kind of 
old fashioned recession that would cleanse the excesses 
of the previous cycle and place the economy on a sound 
footing for renewed expansion. 

Those jeopardized by the Fed's bailout strategy and the 
Clinton Treasury's flood of underpriced investment 
capital extend well beyond lenders to bankrupt hedge 
funds, sinking foreign economies, or bad banks. The 
American public, having been suckered into pouring its 
life savings into a dangerously overvalued stock 
market, is now being called upon to maintain its 
unhealthy spending patterns to keep the economy from 
sinking further. 

The Fed is targeting equity prices in order to prop up 
the wealth effect, quite an evolution from its original 
role of preserving the purchasing power of money. 

In his May 24, 2001, speech before the Economic Club of 
New York, Alan Greenspan said: "Owing to the variable 
and long lags of monetary policy, the effect of our 
recent policy initiatives will take time to strengthen 
financial portfolios and spill over into demand for 
goods and services." The game plan is clear -- reflate 
the stock market bubble. Money supply (M-2) is growing 
at 9.2% year over year, the fastest pace since 1987, 
the year of the October stock market crash. 

Public policy has been painted into a corner by the 
misdeeds of economic and political leaders held in the 
highest esteem during the preceeding mania. There are 
no choices left but to open the floodgates once again. 
Prepare for more policy panic. The neat trick will be 
inflating stock prices in the face of deteriorating 
fundamentals. 

The investment mania in technology and telecom has 
created sufficient overcapacity to last many years. It 
also sparked a boom in consumer goods that will take 
years to unwind as individuals struggle with record 
indebtedness. It will not be long before widespread 
recriminations and finger pointing become a favorite 
media blood sport. 

As the malpractice of economic policy and misdeeds of 
the financial community come to light, investors will 
rightfully begin to distrust the half-truths, 
misconceptions, gurus, and institutions at the core of 
the mania. They will gradually discard the idea that 
the Fed or the Administration can "fix" any problem and 
that buying the dips is savvy. Greenspan, the "price 
fixer and central planner," will replace Greenspan, the 
"Maestro," in the estimation of public opinion. 

As James Grant wrote back in April (NY Times Op-Ed 
4/20/01), "How does he do what he does? Nobody knows. 
It is a mystery. He collects data and ponders them. He 
conceives a course of action. This action takes the 
form of a double manipulation, first of an interest 
rate and second of the mind of the market.... This is a 
mighty tall order. In fact, it is reminiscent of the 
task that the economic planning agencies of the former 
Soviet Union were famously unable to carry out." 

Unfortunately, Clinton's wild party has become Bush's 
hangover. The equity markets are completing the first 
year of a bear market. Rallies of course will interrupt 
the decline, but will reach a string of lower highs. 
The process has much further to go. Bull markets are 
born in skepticism and die in overconfidence. The 
prevailing views on gold are, if anything, skeptical. 

It has been said that in bull markets investors are 
more scared than is justified and in bear markets, they 
are not as scared as they should be. We have traveled 
only a short distance along the way to public 
disaffection with financial assets. Instead of clinging 
to the mantras and rhetoric of the previous decade, 
economic policy makers should declare a clean break 
with past practice. 

Secretary O'Neill should be familiar with the time- 
honored private sector practice of taking huge 
writedowns to lower the bar for the next regime. This 
would include permitting gold to trade freely. Gold, 
which has been viewed as a problem and a threat to 
public policy, can still be used as theater but in a 
positive sense. As the world economy continues to 
globalize, there is no reason that the dollar or the 
euro should be called upon to perform the role to which 
they now aspire, that of a reserve currency beyond 
national borders. 

As an apolitical financial asset, gold represents the 
superior foundation for a new currency to facilitate 
the expansion of borderless commerce. 

The late 1990s mania stretched well beyond tech stocks, 
dot coms, media and telecom. It included the 
unprecedented and exuberant accumulation of physical 
goods by American consumer ranging from SUVs to 
MacMansions, made possible by the overvaluation of the 
US dollar. The willingness of foreigners to exchange 
their goods and services for our IOUs made every 
American consumer wealthy by comparison to any other 
time in history. We had low inflation because foreign 
capacity became a substitute for home grown capacity. 
Artificially low long term interest rates helped 
consumers to spend more than they saved simply by 
enabling them to issue record amounts of mortgage debt. 

Government agency housing debt is now $2.4 trillion or 
23% of GDP. At current growth rates, it will exceed 
national debt in four years. It has reached a level, 
according to the American Enterprise Institute, that 
threatens systemic risk to the financial markets and 
the US economy. The so-called globalization of the 
world economy was in one respect a massive exchange of 
US paper assets for non-domestic resources that enabled 
US consumers/voters to dramatically improve their 
living standards during the 1990s. 

Foreigners now hold on a net basis $2 trillion of US 
assets, or 20% of GDP. They own 44% of the liquid 
treasury market, 23% of the US corporate bond market, 
and 12% of the US equity market. 

Nobody can say that the Clinton/Rubin/Summers strong-
dollar scheme didn't work, at least for a while. 
However, it could work only on the belief that the 
paper issued represented real value. 

For this to be the case, foreigners had to buy into the 
rhetoric and mythology promoted over the period. A 
reassessment of these beliefs will bring about high 
inflation and high interest rates. The alternative to 
the virtuous circle is not pleasant to contemplate, but 
the long running current account deficit that now 
exceeds 4% of GDP is unsustainable. 

Foreign investors have every reason to ask "where's the 
beef?" A bear market in stocks, declining interest 
rates and vanishing profits all qualify as "less than 
expected." 

When the dollar loses its lofty status, American 
consumers and voters will no longer be happy or 
confident. This will have political and financial 
market repercussions. The case for gold is that the 
dollar has been overvalued for an extended period, as 
we wrote a year ago in "The US Dollar: Over-Owned and 
Overvalued." 

Its overvaluation was integral to the financial mania 
that has come and gone. The depressed price of gold has 
been core to the system of beliefs underpinning dollar 
overvaluation. To the extent the depressed price of 
gold reflected more than natural causes, one can expect 
the retribution of market forces to be fierce once they 
gain the upper hand. The mania and the supremacy of the 
dollar are history. 

With so many of these positive macroeconomic 
developments becoming more evident, it is disappointing 
that the gold producers continue to emphasize the 
promotion of gold as jewelry. A higher profile and 
stronger stance on monetary issues would be timely and 
most welcome. 

It would not take much of an investment to bolster the 
intellectual rationale to rehabilitate the metal's role 
as a financial asset. 

Restoration of gold as the foundation for a 
multinational global currency is something the global 
economy could actually use. Now, that would be really 
good theater. 

-END-



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/zoU8wD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/WfTolB/TM";><B>Click 
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




Reply via email to