Has the positioning of the big commercial traders in the monetary metals
futures markets lost its value as an indicator of future monetary metals
prices?
It seems like gold and silver bugs and maybe a few ordinary investors have
been waiting for weeks for the usual smashing of the metals by those traders,
the big investment banks, hoping to buy the next dip, only to have to watch
the metals and the mining shares move steadily higher.
Among the market analysts whose prediction of a smash has gotten stale and
who seems to be doubting himself is Clive Maund, whose latest commentary
notes that it's a "paradoxical situation." His commentary is posted
at GoldSeek here --
http://news.goldseek.com/CliveMaund/1462129992.php
-- and at 24hGold here:
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silv...update--para...
Meanwhile in other commentary at GoldSeek, market analyst Dan Norcini,
while not yet so alarmed about the commercial short position in gold, chides
"gold cult members who seem to not understand that when they are
cheering predictions of $5,000 or even $50,000 gold they are cheering the
ruin of everything around them":
http://news.goldseek.com/DanNorcini/1462129200.php
Count your secretary/treasurer among those who have been expecting the
commitment of traders signal to be validated again for the thousandth time.
But insofar as it is not validated and the monetary metals continue to
rise, your secretary/treasurer can envision two possible explanations and
offers them here with the justification of a slow-news Sunday night and the
expertise of a high school graduate.
That is, either central banks, the biggest participants in the gold
market, have lost control of it, the physical gold part of the market is
overthrowing the paper gold part of the market, and the market is in the
midst of the fabled "commercial signal failure."
Or else central banks have not lost control of the gold market, and
the gold price continues to go exactly where they want it to go.
That would mean that the consensus policy of central banks in regard to
gold has changed recently -- that they now want gold rising again, most
likely to assist in the devaluation of their currencies, particularly now the
U.S. dollar, as well as devaluation of the world's debt, and that the huge
short positions of the banks in the futures markets are actually central bank
positions that must continue to increase even to unprecedented levels to keep
this devaluation "orderly," to use a favorite term of central
banking. (Really, who else but institutions that are authorized to create
infinite money and that hold large gold reserves could accept the risk of
such shorting?)
This would mean that central banks disagree with Norcini. It would mean
that far from considering a sharply higher gold price to be the end of the
world, central banks consider a sharply higher gold price -- at least if it
can be accomplished in an "orderly" way -- the prerequisite of
worldwide debt relief, their own reliquefication, and the maintenance of
their power, gold remaining, as the assistant undersecretary of state for
economic and business affairs, Thomas O. Enders, explained to Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger in April 1974, the supreme "reserve-creating
instrument" of governments, the ultimate money, the form of money that
underwrites all other forms of money, the form of money whose valuation is
control of the world:
http://www.gata.org/node/13310
Your secretary/treasurer is far from the first to have such suspicions.
They were expressed in detail four years ago by the American economists and
fund managers Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance --
http://www.gata.org/node/11373
-- and have been expressed increasingly by others lately, including, perhaps
most notably, by fund manager and author James G. Rickards.
Since the world belongs to central banks and the rest of us occupy it only
at their sufferance, they don't volunteer what they are doing with our
planet. Their policies and actions can be discerned only through careful
observation, investigation, and research, like tedious searching of
government archives that have not been fully redacted, leading to the
compiling of documentation summarized by GATA here --
http://www.gata.org/node/14839
-- and here --
http://www.gata.org/node/16377
-- and even this research does not give much help as to the timing
of policy.
So Maund, Norcini, and even your secretary/treasurer may be forgiven for
not knowing certain things or not giving them their proper weight. The
problem with Maund, Norcini, and others like them is only that, clinging
desperately to their narrow craft, "technical analysis," refusing
to entertain the possibility that what they are analyzing are not really
markets at all but the tools of higher powers, they seem not to want
to know.
