Potrivit portalului „Rusia Today” – cea mai importantă televiziune de știri în limba engleză din această țară –, recenta invadare a Libiei are legătură mai puțin cu protejarea civililor și mai mult cu planul lui Gaddafi de a introduce dinarul din aur.
Cu rezerve de peste 140 detone de aur, Banca Centrala a Libiei a jucat dupa propriile regului pe piata, cand a achizitionat aur! Lingouri si piese mici (si nu lingouri mari – cum se obisnuieste) , depozitate in intregime in propriile locatii (si nu in depozitele puse la dispozitie pentru astfel de scopuri de marile banci sa marile institutii financiare internationale – ca restul jucatorilor din piata). Si iata acum cum se foloseste de el, dupa cum spune FT-ul: “Libya guns for the right sort of gold”
There’s been so much criticism of central bankers lately that I think it’s only fair to point out when one group of them has done the right thing, or, at least, served their client well. The Central Bank of Libya was reported to have accumulated more than 140 tonnes of gold reserves by the time the civil war/ Nato kinetic action started this year. Not remarkable in itself, but it’s all in the execution, and the CBL did it the right way.
A typical MBA-run establishment central bank will own 400 ounce (12.4 kilo) bars, held in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank for International Settlements, or one of the members of the European System of Central Banks. Those are difficult to get back in the event of hostilities, UN embargoes and so on. Furthermore, once you get physical possession, the “London Good Delivery” bars are, in effect, giant coins with a denomination of more than $600,000. It is difficult to use them to pay for smuggled arms shipments and gasoline, or mercenary companies. The sellers often don’t have correct change, and are hardly ever set up to accept mini-ETF shares.
The CBL, though, planned ahead. As I’ve now learned from a European refiner, “unlike other central banks, they bought kilo bars and 500 gramme bars. They also insisted on having them shipped to Tripoli. This is helpful, as the government has certain expenditures now.” Yes, and paying with $50,000 and $25,000 “coins” is much more convenient.
So as we see, those who insist on taking physical delivery of gold aren’t just lunatics with secret weapons caches. Well, maybe some are, but they are also hedging against real risks in today’s world.
The euro-area peripheral country liquidity crisis continues to help the retail market for physical gold, and the profitability of the refiners who serve that niche. Exchange traded fund asset growth, and gold derivatives volume, have not been as strong as coin and bar gold sales.
The developing trend in the European physical gold market is the manufacture and sale of very small bars, including one-gramme “wafers”. Those can compete with the €500 note, the successor to the $100 bill as the currency of choice for going across borders or through the tax laws. As our refiner says: “It’s not so much about inflation, as lack of traceability for exchange controls and punitive taxation.”
In the US, the rise in demand for gold in bar and coin form has been supported by advertising and endorsements, much of it in conservative media. Some left-liberals are now claiming that the demand for physical gold is all about anti-government sentiment. This is not really true; for example, the Central Bank of Libya is firmly pro-government.
One left-leaning American social commentator and author, Thomas Frank, recently wrote: “Advised though they are by intellectuals, and filled though they are with bureaucrats, governments have done tolerably well managing currencies for decades all over the planet.” (Mr Frank did exclude Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe from this judgment.)
I called Mr Frank and pointed out to him that this currency management had not done much for preserving the value of savers’ money in recent decades, compared with gold. “A gold standard is awesome at preserving capital,” he replied, “but disastrous for borrowers, and would lead to deflationary crises.”
So far not many American politicians have staked out an anti-gold position. The last one to do so was Anthony Weiner, the former New York Congressman, and that didn’t help him much. On the conservative side, though, strong pro-gold sentiment is creeping towards the centre of the Republican party.