While the
US government was shut down, we were also offline for almost two weeks. However,
this was not related to any political decisions but due to some technical
problems.
In this
blog, it has always been argued that it is not just one factor having an impact
on the development of precious metals prices. Nevertheless, we were surprised
by the price movement of gold since the last Friday in September. Already at
this weekend, it was obvious that there would be no last minute compromise to
pass the budget in time and that the government shutdown was unavoidable. Given
the stance of the Tea Party fraction within the Republicans, it was even
doubtful whether the debt ceiling would be increased right in time to avoid a
default of the US Treasury. Therefore, it was rather likely that the FOMC would
postpone a decision to taper the bond buying program further into the future. Now,
recent comments from some – even hawkish - FOMC members point in this
direction.
In addition,
the political wrangling in Washington DC argued for a weakening of the US
dollar as foreign investors might reduce holdings of US Treasury paper and
repatriate the funds or invest in more secure government bonds like UK Gilts or
German Bunds. And indeed, as the risk of a default of the US government
increased, the US dollar index declined, which reflects a weaker US dollar
against the major currencies.
Thus, there
were three factors – safe haven demand, postponing of tapering by the FOMC and
a weaker dollar – pointing to a firmer price of gold and other precious metals.
But gold was during this past three weeks the weakest precious metal. Even
after the rebound following the last minute compromise to lift the debt ceiling
for buying time for further negotiations on the budget, gold is still ended the
trading week below the close of the last Friday in September, while all other
precious metals posted gains on balance during this period.
Thus, the
question is, why did gold trade lower to around 1,250$/oz and then rallied
65$/oz after the US Congress passed the bill to increase the debt ceiling? One
possible answer might be a trade recommendation issued by Goldman Sachs to go
short gold. The precious metals analyst of Goldman Sachs recommended to short
gold already earlier this year and he was right in the second quarter. Thus,
some large speculative accounts might have followed his recommendation. This
would also be a possible explanation for the stronger price swings at the open
of the gold futures trading session at the COMEX division of the CME group.
Unfortunately,
due to the government shutdown, the CFTC had not been able to release the
weekly “Commitment of Traders” report. The only available data is on the gold
holdings of the SPDR Gold Trust ETF. Over the last three weeks, the gold
holdings in the ETF dropped from 906 to 882.2 tons. It is well known that the
whale in this ETF is John Paulson and his hedge funds. The performance of his
funds was very poor in the first half of 2013. Thus, some investors might have
regarded the recovery of gold during the third quarter as a good opportunity to
withdraw money. Therefore, forced hedge funds liquidations might be another
reason for the weak start of gold into the final quarter of 2013. However, even
if John Paulson had been forced to liquidate positions in the SPDR Gold Trust
ETF, it would not explain the strong rebound of gold after US President Obama
signed the bill to increase the debt ceiling and to re-open the government.
Many
commentators attributed the strong rise of gold to short-covering. The trading
volumes of gold futures at the CME are no proof for this theory as for each
contract bought there is one contract sold. Fortunately, there is other data
available, which could provide some clues about covering of short positions,
the gold forward rates – or short GoFo – as provided by the LBMA and the
corresponding gold lease rates.
In
mid-September, the 1mth gold forward rate turned positive again and rose up to
0.122% by the end of last month. During the first two weeks of October, the
1mth GoFo edged lower, but clearly remained positive. The picture changed completely
during this past week, with the 1mth gold forward rate falling from 0.08 to
-0.06% and the gold lease rate for the same maturity increased from 0.09 to
0.235%. The movements for other maturities are similar. Often, a rise of the
gold lease rate is accompanied by a fall of gold inventories held in CME
warehouses. But this was not the case this time. While the gold lease rate
rose, the gold inventories remained unchanged until Tuesday and the decline on
Wednesday was not at an unusual size.
Central
banks play a major role in the gold lease market. However, they are also a
major gold investor. In a recent report, central banks as a group had been criticized
as being the worst gold investor buying at the peak and selling at the low.
Furthermore, depending on accounting rules and book entry levels, the revenues
from leasing gold might not be sufficient to compensate the loss due to write
downs on gold holdings. Thus, central banks might have become less willing to
lease gold to hedge funds, which speculate against central banks as gold
investors.
No comments:
Post a Comment