Posts Tagged ‘End The Fed’
The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There’s no price the big banks can’t fix
by Matt Taibbi
April 25, 2013 1:00 PM ET
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world’s largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that’s trillion, with a “t”) worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it “dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.”
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world’s largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world’s largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It’s about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget.
It should surprise no one that among the players implicated in this scheme to fix the prices of interest-rate swaps are the same megabanks – including Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland – that serve on the Libor panel that sets global interest rates. In fact, in recent years many of these banks have already paid multimillion-dollar settlements for anti-competitive manipulation of one form or another (in addition to Libor, some were caught up in an anti-competitive scheme, detailed in Rolling Stone last year, to rig municipal-debt service auctions). Though the jumble of financial acronyms sounds like gibberish to the layperson, the fact that there may now be price-fixing scandals involving both Libor and ISDAfix suggests a single, giant mushrooming conspiracy of collusion and price-fixing hovering under the ostensibly competitive veneer of Wall Street culture.
Why? Because Libor already affects the prices of interest-rate swaps, making this a manipulation-on-manipulation situation. If the allegations prove to be right, that will mean that swap customers have been paying for two different layers of price-fixing corruption. If you can imagine paying 20 bucks for a crappy PB&J because some evil cabal of agribusiness companies colluded to fix the prices of both peanuts and peanut butter, you come close to grasping the lunacy of financial markets where both interest rates and interest-rate swaps are being manipulated at the same time, often by the same banks.
“It’s a double conspiracy,” says an amazed Michael Greenberger, a former director of the trading and markets division at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and now a professor at the University of Maryland. “It’s the height of criminality.”
The bad news didn’t stop with swaps and interest rates. In March, it also came out that two regulators – the CFTC here in the U.S. and the Madrid-based International Organization of Securities Commissions – were spurred by the Libor revelations to investigate the possibility of collusive manipulation of gold and silver prices. “Given the clubby manipulation efforts we saw in Libor benchmarks, I assume other benchmarks – many other benchmarks – are legit areas of inquiry,” CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said.
But the biggest shock came out of a federal courtroom at the end of March – though if you follow these matters closely, it may not have been so shocking at all – when a landmark class-action civil lawsuit against the banks for Libor-related offenses was dismissed. In that case, a federal judge accepted the banker-defendants’ incredible argument: If cities and towns and other investors lost money because of Libor manipulation, that was their own fault for ever thinking the banks were competing in the first place.
“A farce,” was one antitrust lawyer’s response to the eyebrow-raising dismissal.
“Incredible,” says Sylvia Sokol, an attorney for Constantine Cannon, a firm that specializes in antitrust cases.
All of these stories collectively pointed to the same thing: These banks, which already possess enormous power just by virtue of their financial holdings – in the United States, the top six banks, many of them the same names you see on the Libor and ISDAfix panels, own assets equivalent to 60 percent of the nation’s GDP – are beginning to realize the awesome possibilities for increased profit and political might that would come with colluding instead of competing. Moreover, it’s increasingly clear that both the criminal justice system and the civil courts may be impotent to stop them, even when they do get caught working together to game the system.
If true, that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it’s no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.
The banks found a loophole, a basic flaw in the machine. Across the financial system, there are places where prices or official indices are set based upon unverified data sent in by private banks and financial companies. In other words, we gave the players with incentives to game the system institutional roles in the economic infrastructure.
Libor, which measures the prices banks charge one another to borrow money, is a perfect example, not only of this basic flaw in the price-setting system but of the weakness in the regulatory framework supposedly policing it. Couple a voluntary reporting scheme with too-big-to-fail status and a revolving-door legal system, and what you get is unstoppable corruption.
Every morning, 18 of the world’s biggest banks submit data to an office in London about how much they believe they would have to pay to borrow from other banks. The 18 banks together are called the “Libor panel,” and when all of these data from all 18 panelist banks are collected, the numbers are averaged out. What emerges, every morning at 11:30 London time, are the daily Libor figures.
Banks submit numbers about borrowing in 10 different currencies across 15 different time periods, e.g., loans as short as one day and as long as one year. This mountain of bank-submitted data is used every day to create benchmark rates that affect the prices of everything from credit cards to mortgages to currencies to commercial loans (both short- and long-term) to swaps.
Dating back perhaps as far as the early Nineties, traders and others inside these banks were sometimes calling up the company geeks responsible for submitting the daily Libor numbers (the “Libor submitters”) and asking them to fudge the numbers. Usually, the gimmick was the trader had made a bet on something – a swap, currencies, something – and he wanted the Libor submitter to make the numbers look lower (or, occasionally, higher) to help his bet pay off.
Famously, one Barclays trader monkeyed with Libor submissions in exchange for a bottle of Bollinger champagne, but in some cases, it was even lamer than that. This is from an exchange between a trader and a Libor submitter at the Royal Bank of Scotland:
SWISS FRANC TRADER: can u put 6m swiss libor in low pls?…
PRIMARY SUBMITTER: Whats it worth
SWSISS FRANC TRADER: ive got some sushi rolls from yesterday?…
PRIMARY SUBMITTER: ok low 6m, just for u
SWISS FRANC TRADER: wooooooohooooooo.?.?. thatd be awesome
Screwing around with world interest rates that affect billions of people in exchange for day-old sushi – it’s hard to imagine an image that better captures the moral insanity of the modern financial-services sector.
Hundreds of similar exchanges were uncovered when regulators like Britain’s Financial Services Authority and the U.S. Justice Department started burrowing into the befouled entrails of Libor. The documentary evidence of anti-competitive manipulation they found was so overwhelming that, to read it, one almost becomes embarrassed for the banks. “It’s just amazing how Libor fixing can make you that much money,” chirped one yen trader. “Pure manipulation going on,” wrote another.
Yet despite so many instances of at least attempted manipulation, the banks mostly skated. Barclays got off with a relatively minor fine in the $450 million range, UBS was stuck with $1.5 billion in penalties, and RBS was forced to give up $615 million. Apart from a few low-level flunkies overseas, no individual involved in this scam that impacted nearly everyone in the industrialized world was even threatened with criminal prosecution.
Two of America’s top law-enforcement officials, Attorney General Eric Holder and former Justice Department Criminal Division chief Lanny Breuer, confessed that it’s dangerous to prosecute offending banks because they are simply too big. Making arrests, they say, might lead to “collateral consequences” in the economy.
The relatively small sums of money extracted in these settlements did not go toward reparations for the cities, towns and other victims who lost money due to Libor manipulation. Instead, it flowed mindlessly into government coffers. So it was left to towns and cities like Baltimore (which lost money due to fluctuations in their municipal investments caused by Libor movements), pensions like the New Britain, Connecticut, Firefighters’ and Police Benefit Fund, and other foundations – and even individuals (billionaire real-estate developer Sheldon Solow, who filed his own suit in February, claims that his company lost $450 million because of Libor manipulation) – to sue the banks for damages.
One of the biggest Libor suits was proceeding on schedule when, early in March, an army of superstar lawyers working on behalf of the banks descended upon federal judge Naomi Buchwald in the Southern District of New York to argue an extraordinary motion to dismiss. The banks’ legal dream team drew from heavyweight Beltway-connected firms like Boies Schiller (you remember David Boies represented Al Gore), Davis Polk (home of top ex-regulators like former SEC enforcement chief Linda Thomsen) and Covington & Burling, the onetime private-practice home of both Holder and Breuer.
The presence of Covington & Burling in the suit – representing, of all companies, Citigroup, the former employer of current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew – was particularly galling. Right as the Libor case was being dismissed, the firm had hired none other than Lanny Breuer, the same Lanny Breuer who, just a few months before, was the assistant attorney general who had balked at criminally prosecuting UBS over Libor because, he said, “Our goal here is not to destroy a major financial institution.”
In any case, this all-star squad of white-shoe lawyers came before Buchwald and made the mother of all audacious arguments. Robert Wise of Davis Polk, representing Bank of America, told Buchwald that the banks could not possibly be guilty of anti- competitive collusion because nobody ever said that the creation of Libor was competitive. “It is essential to our argument that this is not a competitive process,” he said. “The banks do not compete with one another in the submission of Libor.”
But Wise eventually outdid even that argument, essentially saying that while the banks may have lied to or cheated their customers, they weren’t guilty of the particular crime of antitrust collusion. This is like the old joke about the lawyer who gets up in court and claims his client had to be innocent, because his client was committing a crime in a different state at the time of the offense.
“The plaintiffs, I believe, are confusing a claim of being perhaps deceived,” he said, “with a claim for harm to competition.”
Judge Buchwald swallowed this lunatic argument whole and dismissed most of the case. Libor, she said, was a “cooperative endeavor” that was “never intended to be competitive.” Her decision “does not reflect the reality of this business, where all of these banks were acting as competitors throughout the process,” said the antitrust lawyer Sokol. Buchwald made this ruling despite the fact that both the U.S. and British governments had already settled with three banks for billions of dollars for improper manipulation, manipulation that these companies admitted to in their settlements.
Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs in this Libor suit, declined to comment specifically on the dismissal. But he did talk about the significance of the Libor case and other manipulation cases now in the pipeline.
“It’s now evident that there is a ubiquitous culture among the banks to collude and cheat their customers as many times as they can in as many forms as they can conceive,” he said. “And that’s not just surmising. This is just based upon what they’ve been caught at.”
Greenberger says the lack of serious consequences for the Libor scandal has only made other kinds of manipulation more inevitable. “There’s no therapy like sending those who are used to wearing Gucci shoes to jail,” he says. “But when the attorney general says, ‘I don’t want to indict people,’ it’s the Wild West. There’s no law.”
The problem is, a number of markets feature the same infrastructural weakness that failed in the Libor mess. In the case of interest-rate swaps and the ISDAfix benchmark, the system is very similar to Libor, although the investigation into these markets reportedly focuses on some different types of improprieties.
Though interest-rate swaps are not widely understood outside the finance world, the root concept actually isn’t that hard. If you can imagine taking out a variable-rate mortgage and then paying a bank to make your loan payments fixed, you’ve got the basic idea of an interest-rate swap.
In practice, it might be a country like Greece or a regional government like Jefferson County, Alabama, that borrows money at a variable rate of interest, then later goes to a bank to “swap” that loan to a more predictable fixed rate. In its simplest form, the customer in a swap deal is usually paying a premium for the safety and security of fixed interest rates, while the firm selling the swap is usually betting that it knows more about future movements in interest rates than its customers.
Prices for interest-rate swaps are often based on ISDAfix, which, like Libor, is yet another of these privately calculated benchmarks. ISDAfix’s U.S. dollar rates are published every day, at 11:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., after a gang of the same usual-suspect megabanks (Bank of America, RBS, Deutsche, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, etc.) submits information about bids and offers for swaps.
And here’s what we know so far: The CFTC has sent subpoenas to ICAP and to as many as 15 of those member banks, and plans to interview about a dozen ICAP employees from the company’s office in Jersey City, New Jersey. Moreover, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, or ISDA, which works together with ICAP (for U.S. dollar transactions) and Thomson Reuters to compute the ISDAfix benchmark, has hired the consulting firm Oliver Wyman to review the process by which ISDAfix is calculated. Oliver Wyman is the same company that the British Bankers’ Association hired to review the Libor submission process after that scandal broke last year. The upshot of all of this is that it looks very much like ISDAfix could be Libor all over again.
“It’s obviously reminiscent of the Libor manipulation issue,” Darrell Duffie, a finance professor at Stanford University, told reporters. “People may have been naive that simply reporting these rates was enough to avoid manipulation.”
And just like in Libor, the potential losers in an interest-rate-swap manipulation scandal would be the same sad-sack collection of cities, towns, companies and other nonbank entities that have no way of knowing if they’re paying the real price for swaps or a price being manipulated by bank insiders for profit. Moreover, ISDAfix is not only used to calculate prices for interest-rate swaps, it’s also used to set values for about $550 billion worth of bonds tied to commercial real estate, and also affects the payouts on some state-pension annuities.
So although it’s not quite as widespread as Libor, ISDAfix is sufficiently power-jammed into the world financial infrastructure that any manipulation of the rate would be catastrophic – and a huge class of victims that could include everyone from state pensioners to big cities to wealthy investors in structured notes would have no idea they were being robbed.
“How is some municipality in Cleveland or wherever going to know if it’s getting ripped off?” asks Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, a fund manager who has long been an advocate of greater transparency in the derivatives world. “The answer is, they won’t know.”
Worse still, the CFTC investigation apparently isn’t limited to possible manipulation of swap prices by monkeying around with ISDAfix. According to reports, the commission is also looking at whether or not employees at ICAP may have intentionally delayed publication of swap prices, which in theory could give someone (bankers, cough, cough) a chance to trade ahead of the information.
Swap prices are published when ICAP employees manually enter the data on a computer screen called “19901.” Some 6,000 customers subscribe to a service that allows them to access the data appearing on the 19901 screen.
The key here is that unlike a more transparent, regulated market like the New York Stock Exchange, where the results of stock trades are computed more or less instantly and everyone in theory can immediately see the impact of trading on the prices of stocks, in the swap market the whole world is dependent upon a handful of brokers quickly and honestly entering data about trades by hand into a computer terminal.
Any delay in entering price data would provide the banks involved in the transactions with a rare opportunity to trade ahead of the information. One way to imagine it would be to picture a racetrack where a giant curtain is pulled over the track as the horses come down the stretch – and the gallery is only told two minutes later which horse actually won. Anyone on the right side of the curtain could make a lot of smart bets before the audience saw the results of the race.
At ICAP, the interest-rate swap desk, and the 19901 screen, were reportedly controlled by a small group of 20 or so brokers, some of whom were making millions of dollars. These brokers made so much money for themselves the unit was nicknamed “Treasure Island.”
Already, there are some reports that brokers of Treasure Island did create such intentional delays. Bloomberg interviewed a former broker who claims that he watched ICAP brokers delay the reporting of swap prices. “That allows dealers to tell the brokers to delay putting trades into the system instead of in real time,” Bloomberg wrote, noting the former broker had “witnessed such activity firsthand.” An ICAP spokesman has no comment on the story, though the company has released a statement saying that it is “cooperating” with the CFTC’s inquiry and that it “maintains policies that prohibit” the improper behavior alleged in news reports.
The idea that prices in a $379 trillion market could be dependent on a desk of about 20 guys in New Jersey should tell you a lot about the absurdity of our financial infrastructure. The whole thing, in fact, has a darkly comic element to it. “It’s almost hilarious in the irony,” says David Frenk, director of research for Better Markets, a financial-reform advocacy group, “that they called it ISDAfix.”
After scandals involving libor and, perhaps, ISDAfix, the question that should have everyone freaked out is this: What other markets out there carry the same potential for manipulation? The answer to that question is far from reassuring, because the potential is almost everywhere. From gold to gas to swaps to interest rates, prices all over the world are dependent upon little private cabals of cigar-chomping insiders we’re forced to trust.
“In all the over-the-counter markets, you don’t really have pricing except by a bunch of guys getting together,” Masters notes glumly.
That includes the markets for gold (where prices are set by five banks in a Libor-ish teleconferencing process that, ironically, was created in part by N M Rothschild & Sons) and silver (whose price is set by just three banks), as well as benchmark rates in numerous other commodities – jet fuel, diesel, electric power, coal, you name it. The problem in each of these markets is the same: We all have to rely upon the honesty of companies like Barclays (already caught and fined $453 million for rigging Libor) or JPMorgan Chase (paid a $228 million settlement for rigging municipal-bond auctions) or UBS (fined a collective $1.66 billion for both muni-bond rigging and Libor manipulation) to faithfully report the real prices of things like interest rates, swaps, currencies and commodities.
All of these benchmarks based on voluntary reporting are now being looked at by regulators around the world, and God knows what they’ll find. The European Federation of Financial Services Users wrote in an official EU survey last summer that all of these systems are ripe targets for manipulation. “In general,” it wrote, “those markets which are based on non-attested, voluntary submission of data from agents whose benefits depend on such benchmarks are especially vulnerable of market abuse and distortion.”
Translation: When prices are set by companies that can profit by manipulating them, we’re fucked.
“You name it,” says Frenk. “Any of these benchmarks is a possibility for corruption.”
The only reason this problem has not received the attention it deserves is because the scale of it is so enormous that ordinary people simply cannot see it. It’s not just stealing by reaching a hand into your pocket and taking out money, but stealing in which banks can hit a few keystrokes and magically make whatever’s in your pocket worth less. This is corruption at the molecular level of the economy, Space Age stealing – and it’s only just coming into view.
This story is from the May 9th, 2013 issue of Rolling Stone.
by Tyler Durden
11/05/2011 22:49 -0500
Going back to the annals of brokeback Europe, we learn that gold after all is money, after the G-20 demanded that EFSF (of €1 trillion “stability fund” yet can’t raise €3 billion fame) be backstopped by none other than German gold. Per Reuters, “The Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS) reported that Bundesbank reserves — including foreign currency and gold — would be used to increase Germany’s contribution to the crisis fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) by more than 15 billion euros ($20 billion).” And who would be the recipient of said transfer? Why none other than the most insolvent of global hedge funds, the European Central Bank.
Also, in addition to gold, the ECB had set its eyes on that other “fake” currency that DSK had succeded in protecting throughout his tenure, all his other undoings aside, “The Welt am Sonntag newspaper, citing similar plans, said 15 billion euros would come from special drawing rights (SDR) that the Bundesbank holds.” Naturally, these discoveries prompted a prompt and furious rebuttal from the very top of German authorities: “Germany’s gold and foreign exchange reserves, which the Bundesbank administers, were not at any point up for discussion at the G20 summit in Cannes,” government spokesman Steffen Seibert said. The WSJ adds, “A plan to have the International Monetary Fund issue its special currency as a powerful weapon in Europe’s efforts to contain the widening euro-zone debt crisis was blocked by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to a report in a German newspaper.”
There are three observations to be made here: i) when it comes to rescuing insolvent countries, Germany is delighted to sacrifice euros at the altar of the 50-some year old PIIGS retirement age; ask for its gold however, and things get ugly; ii) the Eurozone, the ECB and the EFSF are dead broke, insolvent and/or have zero credibility in the capital markets, and they know it and iii) due to the joint and several nature of the ECB’s capital calls, while Germany may have had enough leverage to tell G-20 to shove it, the next countries in line, especially those which are already insolvent and will rely on the EFSF for their existence once the ECB’s SMP program is finished, may not be that lucky, and in exchange for remaining in the eurozone, the forfeit could well be their gold.
WSJ brings details on how German SDRs would be used as a temporary (temporary as in European financial short selling ban, and temporary reduction of initial margin to maintenance for everyone to appease MF Global clients) backstop for Europe:
The idea of using SDRs to fight financial contagion isn’t new. When the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 unleashed a financial crisis, the G-20 in 2009 approved a $250 billion SDR allocation to help backstop efforts to fight the spread of the crisis.
The European Central Bank has been buying euro-zone bonds in an effort to keep borrowing costs of weakened members from exploding. But the ECB’s efforts are considered by some experts to be outside of its central mandate to maintain price stability. And the ECB has said that its special measures – buying euro-zone debt — should be temporary and limited in scope. That is another reason why some people are advocating the IMF play a greater role in propping up weakened euro-zone members and become the lender of last resort.
Speaking to reporters at the close of the Cannes summit, Merkel indicated that G-20 leaders agreed in principle that the IMF and EFSF could work together, but the summit could not agree on any specifics.
“We have an interesting process ahead of us and the discussion is not yet concluded,” she said.
Reuters brings more on the the logical German reaction to the EFSF and ECB’s extortion attempts:
“We know this plan and we reject it,” a Bundesbank spokesman said.
Seibert said several partners had raised the question in Cannes whether SDRs could be used to strengthen the EFSF but Germany had rejected this plan and discussions at Monday’s Eurogroup on Monday would not discuss this topic.
The newspapers had said the issue was taken off the agenda at the G20 following Bundesbank opposition but that it would be debated on Monday at a Eurogroup meeting of euro zone finance ministers.
Why will it be debated? Because when at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Germany may be crossed off the list, but here is who is next in order of appearance. Sooner or later, Europe will stumble on that one “leader” whose gold is less valuable than their political stability, because after all, a “united”, “EMUed” Europe has the biggest MAD trump card of all.
Read the entire article HERE.
BY KEITH FITZ-GERALD
Chief Investment Strategist
October 12, 2011
Do you want to know the real reason banks aren’t lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?
It’s because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn’t evening out. To the contrary, it’s growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.
In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.
The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).
Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world’s top policymakers would have reined these things in by now – but they haven’t.
Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.
Think I’m exaggerating?
The notional value of the world’s derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position’s assets. This distinction is necessary because when you’re talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.
The world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble.
Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody even knows if the $600 trillion figure is accurate, because specialized derivatives vehicles like the credit default swaps that are now roiling Europe remain largely unregulated and unaccounted for.
To be fair, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated the net notional value of uncollateralized derivatives risks is between $2 trillion and $8 trillion, which is still a staggering amount of money and well beyond the billions being talked about in Europe.
Imagine the fallout from a $600 trillion explosion if several banks went down at once. It would eclipse the collapse of Lehman Brothers in no uncertain terms.
A governmental default would panic already anxious investors, causing a run on several major European banks in an effort to recover their deposits. That would, in turn, cause several banks to literally run out of money and declare bankruptcy.
Short-term borrowing costs would skyrocket and liquidity would evaporate. That would cause a ricochet across the Atlantic as the institutions themselves then panic and try to recover their own capital by withdrawing liquidity by any means possible.
And that’s why banks are hoarding cash instead of lending it.
The major banks know there is no way they can collateralize the potential daisy chain failure that Greece represents. So they’re doing everything they can to stockpile cash and keep their trading under wraps and away from public scrutiny.
What really scares me, though, is that the banks
think this is an acceptable risk because the odds of a default are allegedly smaller than one in 10,000.
But haven’t we heard that before?
Although American banks have limited their exposure to Greece, they have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks and European governments that may not be capable of paying them back.
According to the Bank of International Settlements, U.S. banks have loaned only $60.5 billion to banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy – the countries most at risk of default. But they’ve lent $275.8 billion to French and German banks.
And undoubtedly bet trillions on the same debt.
There are three key takeaways here:
There is not enough capital on hand to cover the possible losses associated with the default of a single counterparty – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), BNP Paribas SA (PINK: BNPQY) or the National Bank of Greece (NYSE ADR: NBG) for example – let alone multiple failures.
That means banks with large derivatives exposure have to risk even more money to generate the incremental returns needed to cover the bets they’ve already made.
And the fact that Wall Street believes it has the risks under control practically guarantees that it doesn’t.
Seems to me that the world’s central bankers and politicians should be less concerned about stimulating “demand” and more concerned about fixing derivatives before this $600 trillion time bomb goes off.
Read the entire article HERE.
BY STEVE ST. ANGELO
The world is about to peak in global silver production. This will not occur due to a lack of silver to mine, but rather as a result of the peaking of world energy resources, declining ore grades, and a falling Energy Returned On Invested – EROI. The information below will describe a future world that very few have forecasted and even less are prepared. This is an update to my previous article Peak Silver and Mining by a Falling EROI. In my first article I stated that global silver production may peak in 2009 if we were to enter a worldwide depression. We did not have the global depression as massive central bank printing and bailouts have thus far postponed the inevitable.
The world has entered a plateau of global oil production over the past 5-6 years. A higher oil price has not brought on more supply to offset depletion rates from existing fields. From the graphs above we see a correlation between global silver supply and oil production, especially in the latter part of the 20th century. Up until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the majority of energy used in mining silver came from human and animal labor. It is truly amazing just how much silver was produced in the United States at this time without the use of oil and modern mining practices (information provided later in the article). This all changed as global oil production as well as the technique of open-pit mining increased.
The 3 Big Energy Game Changers for Silver Mining
There are a number of some very large open-pit mining projects supplying silver that are forecasted to go into production within the next several years as well as others by the end of the decade. It is astounding to see these 25-45 year extended forecasts by these mining companies without any consideration of what the energy environment will be like in 2015-2020 or later. It seems like everyone in the sector assumes there will be ample supplies of energy at commercially viable prices.
This is where the trouble begins. There are three negative energy game changers that will impact the mining industry going forward. They are: (1) the Peaking of global oil production, (2) the Land Export Model and (3) the falling EROI – Energy Returned On Invested. Of the three, I believe the falling EROI will be the most devastating. Before explaining why this is the case, let’s take a look at each.
Peak Global Oil Production
According to JODI’s global oil production figures represented HERE in a post on theOilDrum.com, it looks like the global peak of convention crude/condensate and natural gas liquids took place in 2006:
Global oil production has increased steadily since the early 1980’s and has now been in a bumpy plateau for the past 5-6 years even with much higher oil prices. It is true that there are more projects and oil fields slated to come online in the next several years, but much of the increase will be offset by depletion in existing fields. To add insult to injury, the majority of oil that is exported throughout the world is being supplied by countries that are also increasing their own domestic oil consumption. This is a double-edged sword for dependent oil importing nations— which leads us to the Export Land Model.
Export Land Model
The Export Land Model developed by geologist Jeffery Brown and others shows how oil- exporting countries suffer higher declines of exports due to increased domestic consumption. As the nation increases its own oil consumption for their expanding economy, this causes exports to fall even greater than declines in oil production alone. This becomes apparent when we look at what is taking place in Saudi Arabia.
In 1980, Saudi Arabia produced approximately the same amount of oil it is presently. However the kingdom is exporting 2+ mbd (million barrels a day) less oil. The right side graph above reveals that as domestic consumption has increased (black line), exports have declined. By 2020, Saudi Arabia’s domestic consumption is forecasted to reach 5.9 mbd of oil equivalent, including natural gas, which will decrease the country’s exports even further (Jadwa Investment’s “Saudi Arabia’s coming oil and Fiscal Challenge”).
If we add up all the other exporting oil countries and consider what the future percentage loss from this model might be, the drop in oil exports will be significant indeed. Here we can see that the peaking of global oil production, plus the declining oil exports described above by the Export Land Model, puts a serious dent in the ability for future growth in the world economies. If the world economies are unable to grow, neither will the supply of base metals and silver.
These two energy constraints are in themselves bad enough news for the global economy and the mining industry. Unfortunately the third is by far the most devastating. The falling EROI measures what amount of that oil will be available for market. It is also described as the net energy that remains after production costs are considered.
The Falling EROI: Energy Returned on Invested
In my opinion, the EROI —Energy Returned On Invested— is by far the most important aspect confronting our economy, society and world at large. Ironically, the EROI of oil and natural gas has been falling ever since man drilled his first well.
According to work done by Cutler Cleveland of Boston University, the EROI of U.S. oil andgas was 100/1 in 1930. It fell to 30/1 by 1970, and hit 11/1 by 2000. Oil was so abundant during the 30’s in the States that it only took the cost of 1 barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels for market. By 2000, it has declined nearly tenfold.
The graph on the right side shows the falling Global oil and gas EROI (by Gagnon, Hall & Brinker) to be 18/1 in 2006. They plot with a solid black line that a possible 1:1 EROI projection may be by the mid 2030 decade. As this EROI ratio continues to decline, it puts a huge stress on the world economies by increased energy costs while providing less net energy for the market.
There has been so much misinformation put out by different organizations as to the amount of oil and natural gas reserves that it is has totally confused the investing community and the public. Whenever I get into a debate about peak oil or oil reserves there is always someone who brings up the notion that the United States is sitting on trillions of barrels of shale oil. This is the subject of a whole other article, but to get to the point, shale oil as a savior of the inevitable United States (or World) Energy Crisis is a pipe dream. Here are the three biggest lies propagated in the U.S. energy industry:
- 1950’s – Nuclear energy…..too cheap to meter.
- 2000’s – Shale Oil trillion+ barrels of U.S. reserves
- 2000’s – Shale Gas 100 years worth of U.S. supply
To explain why there is a great deal of hype in shale oil and gas, take a look at the graph below.
Shale oil is much more expensive to extract than light sweet crude in Saudi Arabia. Many say that increased technology will bring more oil to the market, but it does so at a lower EROI. The lower the EROI, the less net energy is available for market. With less net energy, there is less growth.
Furthermore the depletion rates of a typical shale well in the North Dakota Bakken Field are 75-80% by the second year. Shale gas depletion is even worse, with fields reported from the Texas Barnett Field declining 60% in the first year. The notion that the U.S. will be able to increase oil production significantly with shale oil turns out to be a red herring when you figure that these severe depletion rates make it impossible to do so.
Another nail in the coffin for shale oil is its low EROI. The figures on the right side of the graph above show the different EROI ratios for conventional and nonconventional energy sources. The only thing worse on the EROI scale than shale oil (5:1) is tar sands (2-4:1). Why are these EROI ratios so important and ultimately devastating to the world economy and silver mining? The next graph provides the answer.
As we can see from the left side of the global oil peak, everything is rosy; high EROI ratios with a majority of net energy already consumed by the world economies. Once we slide over to the other side, the picture gets downright scary. Even though there is a great deal of oil on the downward side of the peak, the majority of it gets consumed in the production of the energy itself. Once it costs more to produce a barrel than you get in return, the game is over.
Unfortunately, there is more to it than that. There is a minimum EROI that a modern society needs to sustain itself. All the EROI ratios listed above are figured from the point the oil & gas comes out of the well. We have to remember the oil & gas has to be transported and refined and the interstate-highway system and infrastructure has to been maintained. All of these are costs that are subtracted out of that EROI ratio. This is explained in detail by Charles Hall & David Murphy HERE. The bare minimum a modern society needs is an EROI of 3:1….but if you want the luxuries of art, entertainment, medicine, education or etc; the ratio has to be higher still.
The graph above is one possible forecast of net energy. The creator of the graph has produced another showing a more gradual slope of net energy. I have had several conversations and email exchanges with other geologists and engineers who believe the graph presented above is a more realistic representation than the second. I agree.
Peak Oil is Here Whether You Believe it or Not
Before we get into the silver part of the article, there is one more topic on energy that needs to be discussed. There is continued debate about the Abiotic Theory of Oil as well as the blocking of oil drilling in certain areas of the United States by environmentalists. The Abiotic Oil Theory states that oil fields are continuously being refilled, so there will be no peak oil. Even though this might be true in some small cases as it pertains to methane, the amount is infinitesimal.
The list of countries presently past peak is long. If we consider a good portion of these countries are in areas of the world that do not have much in the way of regulations or environmentalists, peak oil still took place. It is true that there is still some oil in the U.S. being kept from the market by environmentalists and the government, but in the end….it doesn’t change the overall picture all that much.
Lastly, for those of you who believe the information above is controlled by the Illuminati, Bilderbergs or whomever and there is still plenty of oil in wells capped all over the country, there is nothing that can be written or said to change your mind. As illustrated by the data, peak oil is here whether you believe it or not.
As the world is currently peaking in oil production, the United States passed its peak forty years ago in 1971. The same can be said for overall silver production. The U.S. extracted the majority of its high grade silver by the middle of the 20th century. Today, the U.S. has to resort to mining a great deal more total ore to produce the same or less silver than it did years ago. This process is occurring throughout the world. In my first article (link provided at the top of this article) most of the information on ore grades came from Gavin Mudd and his work on the Australian mining industry as well as data on declining global gold ore grades. To continue to understand this ongoing process, I choose to focus on the United States as the USGS – U.S. Geological Survey – has kept some very detailed records of historical mining activity in the States.
CASE STUDY: United States Past Silver Production and Falling Ore Grades
In the early days, miners and investors sought out the best quality and highest ore grades they could find. The higher the ore grade, the higher the profit. Today, there is a great deal of excitement when mining companies release drill results with higher ore grades than expected. Yet, these same ore grades would have been embarrassing to the prospector and investor just 100 years ago. How the passage of time makes us forget what life was like just a short while ago…
The majority of the top eight silver ore-producing states in the country peaked in annual silver production before the 1940’s. Only Idaho and Nevada had higher peaks after 1950.
Colorado had the highest annual silver production of all 50 states with 25.8 million ounces produced in 1893, almost 120 years ago. New Mexico peaked in 1885, Montana in 1892, California in 1921, Utah in 1925, and Arizona in 1937. Even though Idaho had its true peak in 1966 at 19.8 million ounces, it surpassed its previous record by only 200,000 ounces, which occurred in 1937. Nevada peaked late in the game due to two factors: 1) it has recently become the largest gold producer in the country currently, providing nearly 75% of nation’s gold. (with gold mining comes by-product silver), and 2) due to the McCoy/Cove Mine, which single-handedly mined 11 of the 27.4 million ounces Nevada produced at its all time peak in 1997.
Not only did the McCoy/Cove Mine help Nevada to become the second-highest silver producer in U.S. history, it also accounted for 35% of all silver extracted from the state between 1987 and 2003.
The record silver production in Nevada as well as the McCoy/Cove mine are now gone. In its last recorded year of production, the McCoy/Cove Mine produced 596 oz of silver in 2006. That’s correct, a mere 596 oz (that year it was still producing some gold). According to theMajor Mines of Nevada 2010 publication just released, Nevada only produced 7.3 million ounces of silver in 2010…a 70% decline in just 13 years from its peak.
From the late 1800’s to 1950’s the same eight states listed above produced the lion’s share of silver in the country. Very few people who are asked will know which state was the largest producer at this time. Most when asked will say Idaho, Utah or Colorado. I was quite surprised to find out that Montana outperformed them all by producing 775 million ounces by 1950.
Montana produced the most silver in the country at this time due to the richness of copper in the state, where silver was a by-product. According to the MONTANA MINING NEWS MINING JOURNAL dated 8/30/1930:
Anaconda Copper Mining Company is confining work at the Flathead Mine, near Kalispell, Montana, to development, because of the present metal prices, according to a reported statement by Jack Dugan, superintendent. Thirty men are employed in extracting 40 tons daily, of ore, said to average 50 ounces of silver, per ton.
This is an example of the kind of high grade ores they were pulling out of Montana back in 1930. Impressive as it was, this was not the average. To give you an idea of the difference of 75 years, Montana produced 9.3 million ounces of silver in 1935 at an average ore grade of 3.45 oz/ton. In 2010 there were only two mines producing silver as a by-product of copper. The larger producer is the only publicly traded company in Montana and it produced a little more than 1 million ounces of silver at an average ore grade of 0.87 oz/ton or a 75% decline.
The USGS provides Mineral Yearbooks for the states back until 1932. One can imagine what the ore grades must have been in 1892 when Montana produced its most silver in one year at 19 million ounces.
Idaho: the Largest Silver Producer in the Country’s History
The one state that sticks out like a sore thumb in the graph above is Idaho. It is the only state that has produced over a billion ounces silver by 1990 with the majority of it after 1950. Even with this significant production, Idaho wasn’t able to escape the negative aspects of falling ore grades.
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s a larger percentage of silver came from a grade called “Dry and Siliceous Ore”. During this time, between 40-50% of silver produced in the country came from this type of ore. To give you an example in 1922, 46.8% of silver in the U.S. came from dry and siliceous ore. The percentage dropped over the next decade— falling some years into the teens (especially during the 1930’s depression). By 1935, it climbed back to 40%.
This is the sort of ore that primary silver mines are made of as it contains the most silver per ton. Idaho had some of the richest dry and siliceous ore grades in the country. The graph below represents how much this sort of ore grade has declined since the 1940’s.
The reason why this graph only shows data up until 1980 for Idaho and 1989 for the U.S. is due to the fact that information was withheld from the USGS due to proprietary reasons by the mining companies. Furthermore, this is also true for individual state reporting of detailed silver statistics after 1990. In the early days the states provided the USGS with so much information on gold and silver that many of the gold-silver reports were over 200-300 pages. Today the Silver Yearbooks barely fill 15 pages.
To bridge the gap to the present day, we can look at what has taken place in the largest publicly traded mining company in the state. Hecla’s Lucky Friday Mine in Idaho produced 3.3 million ounces in 2010 at an average ore grade of 10.25 oz per ton. The chart below compares the difference from the same mine in 1965.
Here we can see that Hecla has only produced a little more than 100,000 ounces of silver than it did in 1965 but has to process almost double the amount of total ore. This insidious decline of silver ore grades over the years seems subtle to the mining industry that is focused on quarterly results, but becomes an increasingly difficult problem now that the world suffers from peak oil and a falling EROI.
The United States: Produced 25% of all Global Silver 1900-1950
When the U.S. was the Saudi Arabia of the world in oil production at the early and middle part of the 20th century, it was also the second-largest silver producer in the world behind Mexico. Of the 10.5 billion ounces of silver produced by the world from 1900-1950, the United States accounted for 2.7 billion (or 26%) of the total amount.
This historical graph is relevant due to the fact that in next 60 years from 1951-2010 the U.S. only produced 2.58 billion ounces of silver… with significantly falling ore grades shown below.
The chart above represents total ore from mining gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc. The majority of silver comes from base metal mining in which zinc/lead provides the highest percentage compared to copper and gold. In 75 years, the total ore grade of silver has fallen nearly 92% while actual production has remained basically flat. This is due to the fact that all base metal ore grades in the U.S. are falling as well.
For example, copper has shown a huge decrease in ore grade since the early 1900’s. In 1906 the average ore grade for copper was 2.5%. By 1935 the average copper ore grade had fallen to 1.89% and in 2009 the United States produced copper at 0.43% a ton. This is a decline of 77%.
The Falling EROI and Declining Ore Grades
On top of declining ore grades and adding insult to injury, is the falling EROI of energy. When the U.S. and the world were tapping into high quality concentrated ore grades in the early years, they did so with the majority of human and animal labor. This kind of labor was not only very efficient but it also utilizing a higher EROI. The open-pit mining practices employed today are in fact quite the opposite….extracting metal at a much lower EROI.
For example, people today have this misguided opinion that modern farming is very efficient. They see one farmer on a huge tractor working hundreds or thousands of acres of agricultural land. They do not factor in all the energy it costs to plant, fertilize, harvest and process the crop. This does not include all the energy and technology it takes to develop hybrid seeds, the manufacturing of the tractor and equipment as well as many other aspects that go into modern farming. In reality, the pre-industrial farmer with horse and plow was extremely more efficient that his modern counterpart.
Hunter Gatherer = 10/1
Pre-Industrial farmer = 10/1
Modern high-tech farmer = 1/10
The pre-industrial farmer with horse and plow was able to produce 10 calories (of food) for market for every 1 calorie of energy (food) consumed by the operation. Today, the modern farmer needs to consume 10 calories of energy to provide only 1 calorie of food for market. If we consider this ratio, the modern farmer is 98.8% less efficient than the simple farmer with horse and plow.
The only reason why modern farming practices have been successful at this horrible rate of efficiency is due to the high EROI of energy over the past 100 years. Now that the EROI is falling considerably, it is putting severe pressure on the agricultural industry. This will also be true for the mining industry.
Base metals are extracted by either open-pit or underground mining. Of the two, open-pit mines account for the larger percentage of metal produced in the world. (Surface Mining Methods and Equipment) The technique of open-pit mining utilizes huge excavators and large haul trucks to move the ore from the mine. There is a great deal of energy consumed in the development, manufacturing, maintenance and operation of these huge earth moving machines in the mining industry.
It is difficult to estimate an EROI ratio for open pit mining as the end product is metal and not energy. That being said, a simple rule of thumb can be assumed if we take the negative EROI of modern farming as an example. The larger and more complex the machine used in industry, the more inefficient its production as it pertains to the EROI.
Now that we understand the past and present EROI ratios in the agricultural sector, we can see why the early miners and prospectors were much more efficient in producing silver than the huge open-pit mining operations of today when we consider all the energy involved. As the world’s energy sources start to decline in the future and the falling EROI destroys an ever increasing portion of the net energy available for market, the number of open-pit mines will decline as well. As this process takes place, the peak in global mining will occur due the fact that human or animal labor cannot equal the extraction rate of diesel powered earth-moving machines. What is taking place in the mining industry today is the WORST OF BOTH WORLDS… declining ore grades on top of a falling EROI of energy.
The Coming Global Depression: Another Nail in the Coffin for Peak Silver
The world hasn’t suffered an economic depression for almost 80 years. The Kondratieff-Wave analysts who study business cycles say we are now overdue for a depression. Even though this is true, they are correct for the wrong reasons. Business cycles have occurred because humans were able to constantly grow and expand their economies. It was due to the 10/1 EROI of the pre-industrial farmers that enabled the rest of the economy to grow and flourish. After several generations of booms, we had the busts.
As we moved into the modern-industrial economy cheap energy with a high EROI allowed the world economies to grow exponentially—allowing these business cycles to continue. Today we are at the top Boom part of the cycle. The big Bust and depression have been postponed due to the ability of central banks to print money and financial institutions to invent hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of derivatives to hedge overly inflated assets. When the global depression finally arrives, we will never return to anything like we enjoyed before. This bust will be the depression that ends all global depressions.
If we consider what took place during the last depression, base metal & silver mining activity fell off a cliff. The interesting thing to note in the next two graphs below as global silver production declined, gold production actually increased.
Global silver production declined 38% from 1929 to 1932, whereas gold production actually increased 24% in these three years. It took eight years before the world was able to increase silver production over its 1929 figure. Gold on the other hand, increased its global production a staggering 80% during the same time.
This time will truly be different. The world will not be able to increase its gold production anywhere near the percentage it did in the 1930’s. There is a good chance that actual global gold production will decline as the supply chains break down disrupting the highly technical method of refining and processing gold. Another reason may be due to its dependence on copper production as part of its supply. When economies collapse, so does the demand for base metals such as copper, zinc and lead. This is the reason why silver production suffers greater during a depression than gold.
Here we see just how much difference there is in the base metal mining percentage between gold and silver. Zinc & Lead account for the larger portion of the base metal percentage of silver mining, whereas copper production provided 15% of all the gold produced in the world in 2010….or 75% of the base metal pie.
When the world’s central banks are unable to continue to prop up the global economies with money printing, economic growth will drop considerably. China is starting to show signs of an economy heading into a brick wall. Base metal production will decline significantly in the following years cutting back the production of silver as well. If history is a good reference, the future global supply of silver can decline between 20-40%.
A Brief look at World Silver Production
Over the past decade global silver production has increased on average between 2-3% per year. In 2010, according to the World Silver Survey, global silver production reached 735 million ounces of silver. In the first half of 2011 some of the top silver-producing countries have increased their production while others have seen declines. The top producing silver mine in the world, BHP Billiton’s Cannington, has seen its production decrease from 18.9 million oz in the first half of 2010 to only 15.5 million ounces in the first half of 2011 (an 18% decline). Cannington — like all mines— suffers from falling ore grades.
In 2000, Canningtion mined 1.6 million tons of ore and produced 30 million ounces of silver at an average ore grade of 636 g/t. By 2011, it mined 3.1 million tons of ore (or 92% more) just to produce an additional 5 million ounces than it did eleven years ago. What is occurring at Cannington is typical of mines throughout the world.
If we take a look at global silver supply, only a handful of countries have increased their production significantly over the past several decades. Out of all the countries listed in the graph below since 1985, China has had the largest percentage increase. China increased its estimated production from only 2.5 million ounces in 1985 to 99 million oz (or +3,850%) by 2010. The other countries that have increased their production in order of highest percentage are, Bolivia from 3.6 mil oz to 41 mil oz (+1,039%), Argentina from 2.1 mil oz to 20.6 mil oz (+880%), Chile from 16.6 mil oz to 41 mil oz (+147%), Peru from 58.2 mil oz to 116.1 mil oz (+100%), and finally Mexico from 73.2 mil oz to 128 mil oz (+75%), in the same time period. Even though Mexico is the number one silver producer in the world, it had the lowest percentage increase of all six countries. These countries account for 61% of all global silver supply.
Australia was not included in the graph for two reasons. First, even though its production has increased 71% since 1985, its future growth is not forecasted to improve as much as the nations listed above. Secondly, because of Australia’s western form of capitalistic government, it is least likely to deal with issues of political instability, threats of nationalization or protectionist policies such as those in South America, Mexico and China.
Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru— which are located in South America— may suffer from the same type of policies that have plagued the resource industry in Venezuela. Not only are Venezuela’s oil fields nationalized, in August of this year, President Hugo Chavez has also ordered the same for the gold mining industry.
In Mexico, billionaire Hugo Salinas Price has gained significant support in the country to reintroduce the Silver Libertad as legal tender to compete with the Peso for the Mexican people. If this policy were to pass, a large percentage of Mexico’s silver production would be consumed by its own people to protect them from continued inflation. Furthermore, the country suffers from a great deal of upheaval and violence from the drug wars which could lead to political instability possibly threatening the mining industry.
Lastly, over the past several years the world has felt the ramifications of China’s cutback of rare earth mineral exports. China currently produces between 95-97% of the 17 rare earth minerals in the world. Not only have prices of rare earth minerals increased substantially due to this monopolistic policy, it is also forcing foreign companies to move their facilities that manufacture end-user products in China. These companies are also being requested by China to transfer valuable technology to other domestic companies so they can benefit from the knowledge.
This may also occur in exports of Chinese silver. As global tensions increase due the continued disintegration of the world fiat currency system, China may decide to put a total ban on silver exports. Even though Chinese exports have declined substantially (from 3,000 metric tons in 2005 to only 1,575 metric tons in 2009), there is a good possibility that they may turn off the silver spigot completely.
The countries listed above are enjoying the best records of increased silver production, but at the same time are some of the worst candidates for dependable future global supply.
Final Remarks and Conclusion
The world produced a record amount of silver in 2010. Many analysts are forecasting a continued increase in global production for the next decade. There are several factors that show why this will not be possible.
As the world peaks in global oil production and the net energy available for market continues to shrink due to the falling EROI (Energy Returned On Invested), of oil and natural gas, global economic growth will come to a screeching halt. The falling EROI of energy is a one way street to the bottom. Unconventional energy sources such as shale oil, shale gas and tar sands will not be able to stop this decline.
As global economic growth disintegrates so will the demand for base metals – which 70% of silver is a by-product. On top of that, silver ore grades are relentlessly falling in mines throughout the world which takes an increasing amount of energy just to keep production flat. If the mining industry tries to incorporate more human and animal labor to offset declining oil based energy in the future, it will do so only at much lower rates of production than today. This is due to the fact that human or animal labor cannot match the extraction rate of diesel powered excavators or huge dump trucks when it comes to mining silver.
Then there is the negative effect of a global depression on the production of silver. Presently the world has entered into tremendous chaos and economic turmoil. Conditions are ripe for a complete disintegration of the financial markets, thus pushing the world over the edge into a new dark age of hyperinflationary depression. In this sort of atmosphere, countries may resort to the nationalization of mines as well as other protectionist’s policies.
When the nails of the peak silver coffin are added up, the death of increasing future supply is close at hand. The CEO’s and analysts in the mining industry are for the most part oblivious to these factors that will destroy their ability to make viable forecasts of future projects. It amazes me to see professionals plan a huge open-pit mine with a 25-45 year economic plan without any consideration of what the energy environment will be like at that time. For some strange reason, there is this false assumption that “If we build it, the energy will come.”
If the world enters a depression within the next year or two, this will certainly guarantee the global peak of silver production. Why? It won’t matter if the global economy recovers in the next decade, because the peaking of oil and the falling EROI of energy will have destroyed enough net energy to kill any attempt to bring global silver production back to the level it was before.
Lastly, anyone who is good at connecting the dots will realize the ramifications of this article go way beyond just the peaking of silver. The falling EROI of energy will not only be a destroyer of precious net energy, but will also help bring down the largest empire in the world. This will be the subject of a future article.
Read the entire article HERE.
By Jeff Clark
October 5, 2011
It may not feel like it after a 12% correction in the past 30 days, but Mike Maloney – founder of GoldSilver.com – is convinced that we’re in a gold bull market that will be life changing for those who participate. I interviewed him for our current edition of BIG GOLD and am sharing some of what we talked about here. You may be shocked at what you read, because he’s devoted a larger allocation to gold and silver than we have. See why he’s convinced a bubble is ahead for precious metals, how high prices will go, and why he stores some gold overseas.
Jeff Clark: For those who don’t know you, why is Mike Maloney such a big believer in gold and silver?
Mike Maloney: Around 1999, my mother needed help with the estate my father had left her. My sister and I interviewed a dozen financial planners and picked the one that had the most glowing recommendations and gave him control of the assets. He lost about 50% of them in the next year and a half. What I’ve found is most financial planners get it wrong. They’re always chasing yesterday’s news. To be fair, there was a market crash, but with 50% of her assets gone by 2001, I ripped everything away from him, moved it to cash, and started studying the economy like crazy.
I discovered that the people concerned about budget deficits and trade imbalances at that time were in the precious metals sector, the hard money advocates. All the rest of the economists and newsletter writers didn’t really care. Concerns about international trade imbalances and how they were going to come back to bite us one day were coming from the hard money analysts. They also wrote about monetary history, something I just fell in love with. The fact that things just repeat over and over again is amazing.
I have hard data from 1918 to today, and anecdotal evidence before 1918, that shows that throughout history a society has a certain amount of real money – gold and silver. Then they either come out with debased coinage, or paper representations of gold and silver and expand the currency supply, which eventually cause prices to rise. People then realize there was something wrong with the currency and they rush back toward gold and silver to protect their purchasing power… and in doing so, they bid up the value of the gold and silver in the country until it matches the value of the circulating medium.
It appears to me this process has been going on since 407 BC, with the first great inflation in Athens. I have charts in my book, Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver, starting in the year 1918, showing the value of the gold held at the United States Treasury compared to the value of all of the base money or paper currency, and it was a 1:1 ratio.
Jeff: So history shows that the value of gold eventually equals the value of all paper money in circulation?
Mike: Yes. Back then, the US dollar was a claim check on real money – gold. Base money was the number of US Treasury gold notes in circulation. Before World War I, base money equaled the value of the gold held at the US Treasury. Then we established the Federal Reserve and did a bunch of deficit spending for WWI, expanding the currency supply, so now there wasn’t enough gold to cover all the dollars they printed. In 1934 the price of gold was changed to $35 per ounce and the values of base money and gold at the Treasury were once again in equilibrium.
Then we expanded the currency supply to pay for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and in the ‘70s the price of gold rose until its value at the Treasury exceeded base money. But, for a short time in 1980, the value of gold at the Treasury not only exceeded the base money, it surpassed base money plus outstanding credit card balances. This is important because credit cards are replacing cash in circulation, so you must include it if you want to estimate a price target.
Jeff: So how high do gold and silver go?
Mike: When I finished the book, it required a $6,000 gold price to cover base money plus outstanding revolving credit. I’m not saying that that’s going to happen, but if history were to repeat, that would be the price.
However, since the book was written, Bernanke created a whole bunch of base money to bail out the banks, and now it takes a $15,000 to $20,000 gold price. One caveat is that $1.6 trillion of excess currency is sitting on banks’ balance sheets. It has yet to enter circulation, and if it never does, then this price target changes. My point is that prices are a moving target. Putting a dollar figure on them is an exercise in stupidity, I think, because the dollar is always changing. You can’t use it as a measuring stick.
My target for gold is that it should be equivalent to 1/40 of a single-family, medium-priced home, or two shares of the Dow. So gold will probably buy you about 12 times more stocks and 3 times more real estate in the future than it does now. So those are my prices.
And silver will leverage you to that. There is more gold on the exchanges and with the dealers that investors can buy than there is silver. Their current prices do not reflect this. Gold is way too cheap compared to dollars, and silver is too cheap compared to gold.
Jeff: Sounds like it’s not too late to buy gold and silver.
Mike: No. What investors need to be aware of is that we are on the last legs of our currency system. History shows that the world sees a brand-new monetary system every 30-40 years – and ours is 40 years old. Right now all currencies on the planet are backed by debt. All of the previous transitions were baby steps from something (gold) to nothing (debt). In order to give confidence back to the currencies, we’ll have to go from nothing (debt) to something (most likely gold again) in one big, huge, gigantic leap. This will cause an economic convulsion the likes of which the world has never seen.
The end of this precious metals bull market will be marked by panic buying. Gold and silver will be going into an astronomical bubble one day, probably the biggest bubble in financial history. That is why I think gold and silver are still fundamentally undervalued.
Jeff: Investors reading this might be a little skeptical that a bullion dealer is telling them to buy gold and silver. Do you mind sharing what percentage of your assets is held in gold and silver?
Mike: My personal portfolio is 100% in gold and silver. I have no other investments. I am completely committed to this because I absolutely believe it. I spent 2-1/2 years writing what is now a bestselling book on gold, and I opened a precious metals dealership. There isn’t anything I do, no action I take, that isn’t somehow connected to gold and silver.
Jeff: What separates GoldSilver.com from other bullion dealers?
Mike: Everybody at GoldSilver.com invests in gold and silver. They have all been invested in precious metals since I started the company in 2005. Everyone is absolutely committed and very knowledgeable. So we are all on the same side of the boat as Casey Research. If you become a gold and silver client, you’ll know we’re invested just like you are. We’re walking the walk and talking the talk.
We also have a team of researchers who are constantly analyzing where we are in this bull market. It’s in our best interest to try to find the top of this bull market and sell when the time is right. I believe we can multiply your winnings by letting you know what we’re doing when it comes time to sell. The way I’ve set up my company is that if you don’t win, I don’t win.
Another thing you should know is that I am not a gold or silver bug. I couldn’t care less about these metals. They are just in their cycle right now and will be the best performing asset for the coming years – period – just based on history.
There are these brief moments in history where the safe-haven asset also becomes the asset class with the single greatest potential gains in absolute purchasing power. We’re in one of these cycles right now; as the currency supply gets ramped up and people realize there is something wrong with it, they’ll rush back toward gold and silver and bid the price up until it matches the value of the currency supply.
Jeff: You’re increasing the number of storage facilities outside the US; why should a US citizen consider storing bullion outside the country?
Mike: Some investors are concerned about “confiscation,” which is technically incorrect. The US government never confiscated gold; they “nationalized” it. In 1933, they bought it from US citizens at full face so that the Treasury could hold it as an asset for the entire nation. That’s the very definition of nationalization.
Jeff: Are you saying you don’t think gold could be confiscated?
Mike: It’s possible, but I don’t believe it would happen in the United States. More than half of our currency resides outside the border. We’re the only country in that situation. If Obama passed an executive order today once again nationalizing gold, I believe that banks and brokerage houses around the world would suspect something was wrong with the dollar, and they would immediately dump their dollars and buy gold and silver. That would cause the dollar to fall to zero and send gold and silver to infinity in a matter of weeks. I would hope there is someone in the government smart enough to know this. If so, then it makes nationalization very unlikely.
Jeff: Good point.
Mike: But I do believe that it is good to have some geographical diversity. I think we’re going to see governments trying to limit our financial freedom even more than we’ve seen since 9/11. They’ll do this by instituting such draconian capital controls that today’s IRS will seem magnanimous by comparison. I want to be able to travel freely and have access to my funds no matter what happens. Therefore, I keep some of my gold in offshore storage accounts in several countries.
Jeff: But why go to the hassle and bother with the reporting requirements?
Mike: Because if you’ve got ownership outside the country, you may be able to retain it, even in a nationalization. The point is, we don’t know the future. All we can do is look at what’s happening, try to figure out what governments are going to do, and then protect ourselves with a little bit of diversity. And of all the assets you could own offshore, I believe none are safer than physical gold or silver.
Jeff: Do you think foreign storage puts a target on my back with government officials?
Mike: Well, they want to make sure you’re declaring any capital gain. And I do think that precious metals investors will see some sort of windfall profit tax when the government tries to punish those nasty gold speculators that caused the dollar to crash. They will always point the finger anywhere but where it belongs – which is squarely at the government and the Federal Reserve. People are just trying to protect themselves from government stupidity and the Fed by buying gold and silver.
I think the reason they require the reporting is to make it difficult for people to cheat on their taxes. I don’t think it’s going to make you any more of a target than anybody else if you report everything. If you play within the rules, you’re not a target. I myself walk the straight and narrow. I make sure I comply with everything the IRS and the Treasury require.
Jeff: What about the small investor? Do you have any advice for the person who has limited funds?
Mike: Yes. It only takes $40 to become a silver investor. Regardless of what your income level is, you’re going to come out much better in the end. And once you take the leap and become an investor, your mindset changes and you find yourself starting to plan. A lot of people are not really planning on the future that much – but once you buy an ounce of silver and become educated, you give yourself a tremendous advantage over the rest of the population.
So just buy small quantities of silver. It has such leverage to it. And silver will probably go into some sort of super-spike that you will want to catch, which means you probably need some sort of guidance. That’s where subscribing to newsletters such as yours is very, very important for anybody who’s going to get into this.
Jeff: Thanks for your time, Mike. And we appreciate the discount you’re offering our readers.
Mike: You’re very welcome.
Read the entire article HERE.
Get ready for the Pan Asian Gold Exchange, scheduled to open in June, 2012 in Kunming City, Yunman Province– the gateway to all of Southeast Asia. This is serious, as the Pan Asian Gold Exchange is a part of China’s five year plan– which means it is part of China’s strategy for dominance in global financial markets and the global economy.
Pan Asian will allow Chinese to speculate in gold futures contracts or buy physical gold through an account with a bank or broker. All 320 million customers of the giant Agricultural Bank of China will. simply be able to use their Renminbi, the Chinese currency, from their bank accounts to trade gold. Sounds bloody dangerous doesn’t it.
It means the spot market in gold could be headed for China– and away from London’s Metals Exchange or the Comex in New York. I’d like to know who is going to oversee and regulate all this action. For example, when the Comex raises margin requirements to dampen speculative fervor– will China bew governed by that? I doubt it very much.
In June you’ll be able to buy spot gold or futures contracts in China. It also means that the Chinese currency- not dollars– will for the first time become the ruling currency used in one of the major speculative commodities of our age. All eyes will be on the influence of the gold trade in China rather than New York, London, Switzerland or South Africa.
Another reason for registering the reality of gold as a trading vehicle, an investment for households, central banks, hedge funds, endowments. Another bullish force behind the powering of gold prices higher.
No wonder George Soros has bought back some or all of the gold position he sold around $1600 an ounce.
Read the entire article HERE.
By Mark Felsenthal
WASHINGTON | Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:08am EDT
The U.S. economy is grinding so painfully and haltingly toward recovery that the Federal Reserve looks poised to incrementally strengthen the dosage to keep growth on track.
Expect Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to use a speech at an annual central bank conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, next Friday to acknowledge his disappointment over the pace of growth, even downgrade his outlook, and explain which medicines left in the Fed’s cabinet are best suited to fortify the economy.
He looks unlikely to reach for shock treatment.
“With the recovery grinding to a halt in the first half of this year and the economy operating perilously close to a second recession, the Fed will remain on guard against a negative surprise on growth, and will be willing to act accordingly,” Millan Mulraine, an economist with TD Securities, wrote in a note to clients.
So, how is Fed to administer further remedies?
With interest rate tools well exploited, Bernanke is most likely to focus on the Fed’s balance sheet and opt for tinkering with the size and composition of its portfolio to get the world’s largest economy out of its funk.
Interest rates are already near zero, and the central bank’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee just two weeks ago signaled it is willing to hold borrowing costs at rock bottom levels for two years if necessary. There is little more that can be achieved using the rates tool.
Many of the balance sheet steps are well known, and each carries its own risks and rewards, which Fed staff would research carefully. But chances for a major new bond buying operation announced at Jackson Hole would appear limited currently.
In shaping its thinking, the Fed is likely guided by a sense that the current situation, though rather uncertain, merits a cautious approach and does not arise to the crisis proportions seen in 2008 through 2010 that justified bold and aggressive moves.
The last of these – the $600 billion bond purchase program dubbed QE2 because it was the second installment of quantitative easing – was the Fed’s response to historically low inflation that risked tipping the U.S. economy into a vicious cycle of falling prices and falling consumption and investment.
The situation today is different.
Unlike mid-2010, U.S. inflation is now higher, and core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices has accelerated. While higher readings are a concern for some Fed officials, they are not raising widespread alarm at the central bank on the assumption that overall inflation will fall as energy prices recede and that core prices will remain in check.
Instead, the focus is on stumbling growth and the risks ahead. A central group of policymakers on the Fed’s decision-making committee see mounting evidence that growth originally forecasts at around 3 percent for the second half of the year will be slower. While not as dismal as the 1 percent that some Wall Street firms are forecasting, growth this sluggish would fall well short of what’s needed to reduce the steep 9.1 percent jobless rate.
Looming large as a risk factor is Europe’s long running sovereign debt saga, which is pummeling U.S. financial markets and business confidence. So far Europe’s woes and the market turmoil have not caused distress on the scale of the 2008/2009 credit crisis, but it is worrisome.
NO BIG GUNS
Against that backdrop, Bernanke appears unlikely to reach for dramatic measures, but the Fed could be primed to gradually boost the dosage for the ailing economy over the coming months.
One initial step might be simply to use verbal communication. It could commit to maintain its balance sheet, which has ballooned to $2.8 trillion from a pre-crisis level of around $900 billion, at this high level for an extended period of time — even adding a timeframe just as it has for the fed funds rate.
Another measure would be to put downward pressure on medium to long-term interest rates, where mortgages are fixed and corporations borrow, by taking steps to weight the mix of assets in the Fed’s balance sheet toward longer-maturity instruments. This can be done either by replacing its maturing securities with longer-term ones, or by actively exchanging shorter maturities with longer ones.
“Last year at Jackson Hole when the Chairman laid the groundwork for QE2, inflation was rapidly decelerating — the opposite is true at present,” Deutsche Bank economist Carl Riccadonna wrote to clients.
“As a result, if the Fed does move toward additional accommodation, it may first try to extend the average maturity of its portfolio rather than further expand its asset holdings.”
A bolder step would be to buy more bonds, though conditions do not seem to merit that at this juncture. While Fed officials argue bond buying has held longer term rates lower than they would otherwise have been and moved investors to seek riskier assets than safe-haven Treasury securities, the strategy has drawn sharp criticism domestically and internationally.
As a way to tamp down worries that bond buying would spur inflation, the Fed could consider sterilizing new bond buying by simultaneously draining bank reserves. Doing so would remove risk and duration from credit markets, push down interest rates at the longer end of the yield curve, while keeping abundant reserves in check.
FACING THE CRITICS
U.S. critics charge that fresh measures would court inflation. Detractors abroad say bond buying drives down the dollar, drives up commodity prices and unleashes volatile investment flows into emerging markets. Even some within the Fed object to aggressive easing, and the Fed’s August low rate pledge drew an unusual three dissents.
The Fed faces domestic political attacks as well. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry this week said any further Fed monetary easing would be “almost treacherous, treasonous.
But the Fed has a track record of political independence and its credibility stems from a reputation of being free to act regardless of the political winds. To bow to these critics when the economy needed further support would be unusual.
Bernanke has a chance to make his case on Friday.
Read the entire article HERE.
By Neil Irwin
July 21, 2011
For instance, William C. Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who was a senior official there in 2008, owned stock of American International Group before the Fed bailed out the giant insurance firm. The GAO report did not mention him by name, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who spearheaded the audit, identified Dudley as the unnamed official described in the report.
Lawyers at the New York Fed allowed Dudley to continue owning the shares while working on issues relating to the bailout. They concluded that for him to sell the shares immediately after the central bank bailed out the firm would be more ethically problematic than simply holding onto them and selling at a later date.
Dudley “held shares in these companies as part of his personal portfolio that predated his service at the New York Fed,” a spokesman for the central bank said. “A waiver was granted allowing him to hold these shares based in part on the judgement that had he sold these shares immediately after the interventions it would have the appearance of a conflict.”
The GAO report did not condemn the Fed’s actions, it simply illuminated them. Dudley has subsequently sold all the shares on dates agreed to with the bank’s ethics officers, the spokesman said.
The GAO also recommended that the Fed make clearer and more rigorous its policies for hiring independent contractors to manage investment programs. During the crisis, the New York Fed hired outside firms to manage many of its special lending programs, such as one designed to backstop the market for short-term corporate loans, without holding a normal bidding process for the contracts.
The report also found that lines of authority between the Fed’s Board of Governors in Washington and the 12 regional Fed banks around the country were sometimes muddled during the crisis. For example, it was not always clear where authority resided on questions of what collateral would be adequate for an emergency loan.
The report was the latest to detail aspects of the Fed’s actions during the financial crisis that were shrouded in mystery at the time. Another provision in last year’s Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulatory overhaul, also instigated by Sanders, required the disclosure of what individual banks and other entities received loans from the Fed.
“As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” Sanders said in a statement. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
The Fed’s general counsel, Scott Alvarez, said in a letter responding to the GAO’s audit that officials will “strongly consider” the recommendations.
Read the entire article HERE.
by Agustino Fontevecchia
Jul. 13 2011 – 11:26 am
Chairman Ben Bernanke faced-off with Fed-hating Representative Ron Paul during his monetary policy report to Congress on Wednesday. The head of the Fed was forced to respond to accusations of enriching already rich corporations while failing to help Main Street, while he was pushed on his views on gold. When asked whether gold is money, Bernanke flatly responded “No.” (See video below).
While most of Bernanke’s reports to Congress serve politicians to pursue their own agendas by gearing the Chairman towards their issues, with Republican Rep. Bacchus talking of the unsustainability of Medicaid and Rep. Frank (D, Mass.) asking about the need to raise the debt limit without cutting spending, it was a stand-off between Bernanke and Ron Paul that took all the attention. (Read Apocalyptic Bernanke: Raise The Debt Ceiling Or Else).
Rep. Ron Paul, Republican for Texas, asked Bernanke why a capital injection of more than $5 trillion “hasn’t done much” to help the consumer, who makes up about two-thirds of GDP in the U.S., and prop up the economy, while it helped boost corporate profits. “You could’ve given $17,000 to each citizen,” Ron Paul claimed.
Bernanke, clearly on the defensive, told Rep. Ron Paul that his institution hadn’t spent a single dollar, rather, the Fed has been a “profit center” according to the Chairman, returning profits to the federal government. As Bernanke began to sermon Rep. Paul on the history of the Fed (“we are here to provide liquidity [in abnormal situations],” the Chairman said), he was interrupted.
“When you wake up in the morning, do you think about the price of gold,” Rep. Paul asked. After pausing for a second, Bernanke responded, clearly uncomfortable. that he paid much attention to the price of gold, only to be interrupted once again.
“Gold’s at about $1,580 [an ounce] this morning, what do you think of the price of gold?” asked Rep. Paul. A stern-faced Bernanke responded people bought it for protection and was once again cut-off, with Ron Paul once again on the offensive.
“Is gold money?” he asked. Clearly bothered, Bernanke told the representative, “No. It’s a precious metal.”
After Paul interrupted him to note the long history of gold being used as money, Bernanke continued,”It’s an asset. Would you say Treasury bills are money? I don’t think they’re money either but they’re a financial asset.”
“Is gold money?” he asked. Clearly bothered, Bernanke told the representative “no, gold is not money, it’s an asset. Treasuries are an asset, people hold them, but I don’t think of them as money,” said Bernanke.
Rep. Ron Paul again jumped in, noting the long history of gold being used as money, and then asked Bernanke why people didn’t hold diamonds, clearly hinting at his fiat money criticism of the U.S. monetary system. The Fed Chairman told Rep. Paul it was nothing more than tradition, and, as he was attempting to develop his argument, Rep. Ron Paul quickly asked the acting authority of the House of Representative’s Committee on Financial Services, Rep. Bacchus, to excuse him for exceeding his time, as he returned the floor to the Committee. (Read Bernanke To Rep. Paul Ryan: QE2 Created 600,000 Jobs).
The interesting exchange served as one of the few times Bernanke has been publicly pushed off his comfort zone by an elected official. Rep. Ron Paul brought up the issues that he’s famous for, namely, a sort of allegiance between the Fed and the nation’s most powerful institutions, the illusion of fiat money, and the gold standard. Bernanke, angered and bothered, had no option but to respond. (Read Bernanke’s Contradiction: Minutes Reveal QE3 Talk And Exit Strategy).
Read the entire article HERE.
By Greg Hunter’s
27 June 2011
The Federal Reserve has been a clandestine organization since its inception. It is not really part of the federal government; it is merely a subcontractor for monetary policy. The Fed is basically a cartel of both U.S. and European banks. It has pulled the levers in the economy from behind a curtain of secrecy since 1913 and has always enjoyed a certain degree of respect and admiration. All that changed when the economy melted down in 2008. The respect and admiration of the Federal Reserve is being shredded right along with its veil of secrecy. The Fed allowed everyone to think the cost of controlling the 2008 financial crash was just a measly $3.3 trillion. This giant lie was exposed after Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont put a provision in last year’s financial reform bill that forced the Fed to come clean on $9 trillion in additional emergency loans and bailout money. The Fed funneled cash to foreign banks and companies right along with American banks and companies. It basically rewarded reckless and illegal behavior of greedy Wall Street bankers that caused the mess we are in now.
Nothing is fixed and nothing has really changed. The economy is still a wreck, and the Fed still wants its secrets. CNBC reported last week that the Fed refuses to tell how much cash it sent to Iraq just after the invasion because it came from the “oil for food” program. The Fed claims it has to obey “rules.” The report said, “The Fed’s lack of disclosure is making it difficult for the inspector general to follow the paper trail of billions of dollars that went missing in the chaotic rush to finance the Iraq occupation, and to determine how much of that money was stolen.” (Click here for the complete CNBC story.) Taxpayers would be on the hook for the missing cash that the Defense Department says is $6.6 billion. This could represent the largest theft in history. The Fed didn’t obey any “rules” when it hid $9 trillion in bailout money. Doesn’t the Fed work for the U.S.? Apparently not.
Last week in Congressman Ron Paul’s Monetary Policy Subcommittee, Treasury Inspector General Eric Thorson assured Congress U.S. gold was safe. The gold is under the control of the Federal Reserve, and it has not been audited in decades. Paul wants an audit, and there are plenty of folks at the Fed who are against it. CNN reported last week on the hearing and said, “During the hearing, Paul suggested that the Federal Reserve of New York, which has 5% of the U.S. gold reserves, has the ability to secretly sell or swap gold with other countries without anyone knowing. “The Fed is pretty secret, you know,” said Paul, who leans Libertarian. “Congress doesn’t have much say on what’s going on over there. They do a lot of hiding.” (Click here for the complete CNN story.)
Also last week, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke held a press conference and said, “We don’t have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting.” This is an astounding admission from the head of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke doesn’t know why the economy is failing? Economist John Williams from Shadowstats.com isn’t buying it. In his most recent report, Williams said, “It is hard to believe that Mr. Bernanke, the presidents of the regional Federal Reserve Banks and the extensive staff of fine economists throughout the Federal Reserve System do not understand why the economic and systemic-liquidity crises persist. If indeed the problems really are not understood, Mr. Bernanke should not be Fed Chairman. More likely, the problems are understood, but Bernanke’s admitting that would entail his admitting that circumstances are beyond control, and that the Fed lacks the ability to address the issues effectively. . . . There is the possibility, though, that the comments were deliberate, intended as a warning of things to come. . .”
The Federal Reserve wants its dealings with bailouts and our nation’s gold to be kept secret. I don’t know if Bernanke is just incompetent, or if he continually lies about what is happening in the economy to keep the public from panicking. Do we really need the Fed with all their secrets and lies?
Read the entire article HERE.