0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false

It’s curious, isn’t it?  So-called “paper gold” (a futures contract) has a price that is not only very close to physical gold, but it remains locked to it.  This is despite the fact that “paper gold” is reviled in the gold community. 

I am writing this on Sunday evening with little liquidity in the market, and yet spot gold (XAU) is 1665.80 and the December future (GC Z3) is 1674.40.  There is a small positive spread, about 0.5%, between spot and future.  This spread is remarkably consistent from day to day.  If spot gold goes down 1.2% then the December future,and the other months as well, go down by almost exactly 1.2%.

It’s worth underscoring that these are different prices for different things in different markets.  “Paper gold” is not physical metal!  If there weren’t some force that kept their prices locked together, they would detach and one could rise while the other falls, or vice versa.  This is not, in fact, how they behave.  They remain locked (at least for the time being).  Why?  What is this mysterious force that binds them tightly together? 

Let’s take a step back for a moment.  The futures market exists to serve the needs of producers and consumers.  Producers—miners in this case—need to have predictable and consistent cash flow so they sell some of their production forward.  Consumers, such as electronics manufacturers, and jewelers, have the same need so they buy some of their raw materials forward.  Both can sign a contract now that locks in a price at some date in the future.

Of course, in the gold standard, there would be no such thing as a gold futures market.  Futures for all other goods would be priced in terms of gold.  Gold itself would not be available at a discount, nor would one ever need to pay a premium to get it.  One could borrow it at interest, but that is in the bond market not in the futures market.

Once a futures market is established, speculators come in to bet on the direction of the price.  They do not produce the good—gold in this case—nor use it.  They cannot deliver gold to a buyer, nor do they wish to be delivered gold.  They want to profit from a change in the price.  They believe they have superior knowledge compared to the other market participants, and so use the futures market as an easier and more convenient way to bet than the physical metal market.  And besides, the futures market offers leverage.

This is the basic theory of the futures markets, in a nutshell.  Producers and consumers are trying to reduce risk.  Speculators are making bets, pushing prices around, sometimes annoying the producers and sometimes annoying the consumers. 

We still have not explained the fact that the price of “paper gold” tracks the price of gold metal.  To do that, we need to introduce a third type of actor in the futures markets.  The arbitrageur does not care about price; he is focused on spread.  The arbitrageur can buy physical metal and at the same time sell a futures contract.  This will earn him a little over $8 per ounce based on the prices I quoted at the top, or a bit more than 0.5% annualized.  Compared to the yield on a 1-year Treasury, about 0.15%, this isn’t bad.

So long as the price of the futures contract is higher than the price of the physical metal, then the arbitrageur can buy metal and sell a contract to pocket this spread.  This will obviously lift the price of the metal and depress the price of the paper, compressing the spread.  The arbitrageur will stop when the spread becomes too small to be worth his time, effort, and risk. 

If the futures contract ever became cheaper than the physical metal (called “backwardation”) then anyone who owns a gold bar can sell it and simultaneously buy a future with the intent to stand for delivery.  In this case, the arbitrageur sells physical metal and buys a future, thus depressing the price of metal and lifting the price of the future.  As in the previous case, the spread is compressed.

This is not merely academic theory.  Analysis of this spread (called the “basis”) can shed light on what’s really happening in the markets.  Sometimes (as now) there is a simple trade that is obvious, but only to someone looking at this spread.

In Part II of this article (free enrollment required for full access), we walk through the analysis and propose a contrarian precious metals trade.

There is an article in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/35bb9e50-6a13-11e2-a7d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz…) about debt problems in China.

I have taken the liberty of summarizing the key points:

This article originally appeared in The Gold Standard, the journal of Gold Standard Institute.

What does Japan hope to get from this?

An allegation of plagiarism, which is a serious charge, has been made against me.

Writing about my paper (The Unadulterated Gold Standard, Part III), Hugo Salinas Price, a respected thinker in the gold and silver community, published an article on Christmas Eve (Keith Weiner plagiarizes).

He states: “The intellectual work of Prof. Antal E. Fekete, Dean of the New Austrian School of Economics, has been plagiarized by Keith Weiner…”

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an act of plagiarism means to: “v. Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one’s own.”

Mr. Salinas Price continues: “Not one word of recognition is afforded to the author [emphasis added], by Weiner.”

This implies that Professor Fekete is the author of my paper.

Mr. Salinas Price does not quote either from Professor Fekete’s paper or my own nor does he provide evidence.

Even if Mr. Salinas Price means that I do not credit Professor Fekete as my teacher in monetary science, this charge is also untrue.  Until Professor Fekete awarded my degree, my bio stated I was “a student at the New Austrian School of Economics, working on his PhD under Professor Antal Fekete”.  Now, it says “he has his PhD from the New Austrian School of Economics”.

In numerous papers, from the first I published (Fractional Reserve Banking) to my dissertation (A Free Market for Goods, Services, and Money) to the most recent on Dec. 22 (Reflections Over 2012), I credit Professor Fekete and cite his papers.  This includes my submission to the Wolfson Economics Prize (Gold Bonds to Avert Financial Armageddon).

I clearly, openly, and repeatedly state that I am an Objectivist, which means that I credit Ayn Rand for my philosophy including ethics and my view of capitalism.  I also acknowledge Professor Fekete as integral to the development of my thinking in monetary science.  The ideas of both Rand and Fekete are obvious in my writings.

I hope this statement clarifies this issue and demonstrates that I take what I write seriously.  However, under the circumstances, because he has presented not a shred of evidence to support his inflammatory charge of plagiarism, I think Mr. Salinas Price should apologize.

Meanwhile, the world faces a grave threat.  The monetary system is moving inexorably towards collapse (When Gold Backardation Becomes Permanent). Those who love civilization have serious work to do.