 First and foremost the fact that the ABN AMRO "story" is a prime example of what happens when nobody bothers to actually carry out any investigation yet chooses to spin the story into their own confirmation bias. As per ABN AMBRO themselves:
“Until 2009 ABN AMRO had a small bank that traded in physical gold called Hollandse Bank Unie (HBU) located in Rotterdam. Following our integration with Fortis Bank Netherlands, ABN AMRO was required by the European Commission to sell a part of its commercial banking portfolio in the Netherlands to Deutsche Bank. This was publicly announced at the time and included the sale of HBU, along with the transfer of HBU clients to Deutsche Bank. These HBU clients were able to use ABN AMRO facilities during the transition phase, and Deutsche Bank also offered its HBU services to ABN AMRO. Deutsche Bank subsequently announced last year that they would cease HBU activities in the Netherlands from 1 April 2013 – including this facility for ABN AMRO. We recently sent a letter to small number of affected clients, advising them that we can no longer make use of the HBU facilities provided by Deutsche Bank from this date. ABN AMRO has not provided these services directly since the sale of HBU, so there is no change to our offering – only to the facilities provided by Deutsche Bank. We have also found a new provider for these services, that is UBS.”
Source: http://forexmagnates.com/abn-amro-halts-physical-gold-delivery-another-sign-all-trading-is-simply-for-pieces-of-paper
Here's the letter from ABN AMRO from 2011 https://www.abnamro.nl/en/images/Generiek/PDFs/090_Expats_Pages/Investor_Giro_Conditions.pdf
Thanks to the hard work from the folks at Screwtape Files,
It clearly states "You have no right to the physical precious metals in
which you invest." It goes on to explain that you can sometimes get metal, but that you cannot under extreme market conditions and such. And it clearly states "Even if DBN goes bankrupt, you have no right to the
physical precious metals in which you invest."
Obviously an allocated account, right?
Next, your piece discusses an investor being refused to take his physical gold out of "a major Swiss bank". They told him that the regulatory authority prevented the bank from giving the client his physical gold. YOU helped him get it out ... So, THEY HAD IT i.e. A non event given that the bank had the gold to give him after YOUR intervention. This story actually speaks to availability of said gold.
You then go on to say that another of your clients was told by a major Swiss bank that he could only take out 100,000 Swiss francs of physical gold every six months as the bank claimed money laundering and terrorist activity measures for this decision. As you know, many institutions have very tight money laundering rules in place since 9/11 but again, your major swiss bank goes UNNAMED. How convenient.
Then, yet another client is told by yet another "major swiss bank" that his storage fees would be going up and was advised to convert to paper gold when he complained. - again, you don't name the bank. WHY?
Finally, "yet another big bank, which has an ETF" told a client who wanted to transfer gold out it that he would have to wait at least two weeks for the transfer". - No name of the bank ... WHY? .. How "substantial" was this client's order? --- don't answer that, it's not relevant.
You then go on to make the highly speculative inference that this.... "points to the fact that there is a major shortage of physical gold in the banks. These banks obviously don’t want to lose customers, but their behavior and the reluctance to deliver also points to a REAL SHORTAGE in the physical market"
Take a step back and re-read your piece Egon.
Not one of these banks REFUSED outright delivery (one actually COMPLIED on 'your insistence'). Another of them was going to increase fees -- not deny delivery and yet another was happy to comply but allegedly needed a couple weeks.
While I completely understand that your clients' information is private, if you are making allegations that "BIG BANKS" are refusing delivery then please, RELEASE the names of the banks. There is nothing wrong with that if your claims are true.
As for your attempt to connect an increase in fees to a shortage of gold, how's this for FACT:
The storage hikes were well known in Jan of 2013 when Credit Suisse and UBS announced a 20% hike to their existing fees that ran at roughly 0.05-0.1% of the value of the bullion. Why are you trying to pass this off as "news exclusive to your client" in an attempt to "sex up" this fairy tale?
Did you mention that as per that same piece, non-Swiss banks are considering building new vaults in the country to take advantage of the move by UBS and Credit Suisse? Obviously there must be metal to be stored if building new vaults is being considered.
Source: http://www.mining.com/swiss-banks-hike-charges-to-store-gold-in-their-vaults-20-23092/
So, why don't I have a problem in saying "UBS and Credit Suisse" announced storage fee hikes yet you have a problem naming the banks??
SImple ... could it be because your information and stories are harder for the public to fact check when you exclude key points?
I've always said that everyone promoting a gold conspiracy theory has something to sell. Creating fear and suspicion around major bullion banks that store gold for clients wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you, Egon, SELL non-bank storage would it (wink)? This fact can be easily verified by anyone who takes the time to read Egon's interviews with King World News.
Like I said ... Everyone with a story has something to sell.
 Commented 4136 days ago |
