Loans backed by falsified gold transactions

What started in the copper market with the probe of alleged fraud at Qindao warehouses in China now spreads to the gold market. Bloomberg reported on Thursday that China’s chief auditor discovered 94.4 bn yuan ($15.2bn) were collateralized by falsified gold transactions. Although already widely suspected by many people, this was the first official confirmation that also gold is used in Chinese commodity financing deals. Goldman Sachs reports according to the media that up to $80bn false-loans may involve gold. Thus, the question is: how do these false-loans influence the spot gold market?

To answer this question, it is first necessary to analyze how commodity financing deals work. There are two possibilities. In the first kind of commodity financing transactions, the owner of the commodity uses warehouse receipts to get credit from banks. The proceeds from this collateralized loans can be invested in higher yielding assets before redeeming the debt. This transaction is only economical if the return on the investment is higher than the interest rate on the loan. Due to restrictions, this is currently the case for investments in the Chinese shadow banking system.

The second transaction involves the import of the commodity. The Chinese buyer places an order with a foreign company to buy the commodity. Then the buyer applies for a letter of credit from a lender, which is used to import the commodity. With opening the letter of credit, the buyer obtains the consignment, which he can sell in the domestic market. Again, the importer of the commodity can use the proceeds for investing onshore before paying back the original loan. As many commodities are traded internationally in US dollars, this type of financial deal involves cross-currency transactions. Funding costs in US dollars are quite low and the foreign exchange rate risk is limited due to the yuan exchange rate regime, which allows only limited daily fluctuations. In addition, as long as the yuan strengthens against the US dollar, the yuan appreciation even contributes to the return in local currency for the Chinese importer.

In the first type, if the loan is based on a falsified gold transaction, then the warehouse receipt is a fake. This implies that the lender has made a loan but the collateral is worthless. The lender could demand from the borrower to provide the promised collateral. Alternatively, the creditor could cancel the loan agreement and demand the repayment of the credit. For the borrower, it might be probably easier and cheaper to liquidate the domestic higher-yielding investment and to redeem the loan. Buying the gold in the spot market requires to have the funds available to pay the seller. Obtaining a loan in this situation is probably far more expensive. In addition, interest payments on the original loan are still due.

Therefore, the direct impact on the spot price of gold should be rather limited. Those who obtained a loan based on false-gold transaction are more likely to liquidate the investment and redeem the loan than purchase gold to provide the collateral. However, the process of selling the higher yielding investments probably leads to price pressures for those investments, which might induce other investors to purchase gold as a safe haven.   

In the case of the second type of commodity financing transaction, there should be a discrepancy between the gold import statistics and the volume of consignments. In international trade finance, after a letter of credit was opened, the bank of the exporter sends the documents to the bank of the importer. The importer’s bank examines the documents, makes the payment to the bank of the exporter and hands the documents to the importer. If the consignment is faked, the buyer of the consignment will notice the fraud with a delay of only a few months if the commodity never arrives at the port of destination. Furthermore, ships can be tracked easily nowadays. Thus, the chances of discovering a falsified gold transaction involving gold imports are higher. Therefore, it is more likely that a faked gold transaction occurs with warehouse receipts instead of consignments.  

In the case of a falsified consignment, it is also rather unlikely that it will lead to a higher demand for gold in the spot market. The buyer of the consignment would have to prove who faked the consignment. This could be either the exporter or the importer. Identifying the party who faked the documents is a time consuming process. But even if the buyer succeeds to obtain a legal title against the criminal party, it might be worthless in the case this counterparty went bankrupt in-between.

While the amount of commodity financing based on falsified gold transactions is impressive, the impact on gold prices should be rather limited. Unwinding the financing deals does not involve buying or selling gold as a necessary condition. However, other assets, i.e. those purchased with the proceeds from commodity financing might come under pressure. This is especially the case if lenders demand more and secure collateral or terminate the loan agreement.

Precious Metals rally after FOMC Meeting

While precious metals traded sideways ahead of the FOMC meeting, the four metals rallied as the US dollar weakened against the major currencies after the meeting. Gold jumped above 1,300$/oz. and silver above 20$/oz. However, we regard the reaction in the precious metals and foreign exchange markets as overdone.

The FOMC kept the Fed Funds target rate unchanged at 0.25% or lower and reduced the total volume of bond purchases by another $10bn. This should not come as a surprise. The Fed did not provide any hint that the majority of FOMC voting members would accelerate the speed of tapering. Even with the committee recognizing “that growth in economic activity has rebounded in recent months”, the stronger growth compared with the first quarter is not a convincing argument to change track in monetary policy. Also the improvement in the labor market is not sufficiently strong enough to justify a faster termination of bond purchases. The FOMC still regards the unemployment rate as elevated. Furthermore, the committee states “inflation has been running below the Committee’s longer-run objective, but long-term inflation expectations have remained stable”. Thus, also the second target of the Fed does not provide a justification for reaching the end of bond purchases faster than previously indicated.

The FOMC also presented its economic projections. It lowered the projection for GDP growth in this year from 2.8 – 3.3% to 2.1 -2.3%. At a first glance, this might look like a major revision in expectations for the current quarter and the second half of 2014. However, for the GDP in the final quarter of 2014 to be 3% higher than in the same quarter of the previous year, GDP has to grow at an average quarterly rate of around 0.75%. But due to the negative weather, US GDP declined by 0.25% quarter-on-quarter, which translates into a drop of 1.0% annualized. Taking this decline into account, the revised projection still implies an average quarterly GDP growth of around 0.75% for the other 3 quarters in 2014. Thus the new projection neither reflects a more pessimistic nor more optimistic view of the FOMC members on the underlying expansion of US economic activity. Also the revisions for the unemployment and inflation rate are only minor.

There was criticism that the decision to taper further by $10bn was inconsistent with the revision of GDP projections. However, as shown, the FOMC has not changed the projection for average quarterly growth for the remaining 3 quarters. Furthermore, the revision of the GDP projection has led to accusations that the Fed would always overestimate GDP growth. The FOMC presents a range of GDP growth, nevertheless, there remains an imponderability in any forecast of a random time series. And in the case of the Q1 GDP growth, the weather had a stronger impact on economic activity than on average during the winter months. Even meteorologists did not predict such a long cold period before the start of the winter season. Therefore, the FOMC is not to blame for overestimating the GDP growth in Q1.

But also the expectation of faster end of bond purchases are not rational based on the expectation of a recovering US economy. The projections of the FOMC for the dual mandate variable are only modified slightly. Also the underlying expectation for average quarterly GDP growth remains almost unchanged. However, for terminating bond purchases faster the FOMC would have to expect stronger economic activity than previously assumed. Just forecasting a recovering after the decline of GDP in Q1 is not sufficient.

The dot charts are sometimes misinterpreted. But they give a good indication about the direction of monetary policy and the possible Fed Funds target rate at the end of the corresponding year. There is still no majority expecting a rate increase in 2014. Thus, the middle of 2015 remains currently the most likely date for the first rate hike. However, there appears to be no majority for increasing the Fed Funds target rate beyond 1.25% by the end of 2015. The dot chart from the March FOMC meeting showed that the majority did expect the Fed Funds rate to be only lifted to 1.0%. Thus, the FOMC got a bit more hawkish as far as the outlook for interest rates is concerned. But the Fed Funds December 2015 future just prices in a hike to 0.75%.

From our point of view, the risk is clearly that the FOMC might hike the key interest rate more than the market prices in during the second half of 2015. This should be supportive for the US dollar against the euro and the Japanese yen. However, the Bank of England might increase the base rate earlier. But overall, the indications provided by the FOMC do not support arguments for a weaker US dollar. Thus, the FOMC policy outlook is also not positive for the precious metals.

But there is not only a danger for precious metals of the Fed monetary policy outlook for 2015 via the influence of the US dollar on precious metals. At the current yield of 2.62% on 10yr US Treasury notes, there is hardly any downside potential left unless economic conditions weaken surprisingly and would derail the FOMC policy projections. A rise of the Fed Funds target rate to 1.25% within the next 18 months should also lift yields higher at the medium- to long-term maturity range. Given the outlook provided by the FOMC, 10yr US Treasury yields in the range between 2.75 – 3.0% appear more appropriate and 2.62% looks as expensive. A rise of US Treasury yields also increase the opportunity costs for holding precious metals. Thus, also the medium-term outlook for the US Treasury market is a negative factor for gold and silver. 

Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the outlook for precious metals is not as positive as the market believes after the FOMC meeting. As long as the US economy develops as the FOMC expects, the risk for precious metals remains more biased to the downside. Only negative surprises, which would lead to a change in the outlook for the Fed policy, could make gold more attractive in the medium-term. However, geo-political developments could lead to demand for gold and silver as safe havens. How the situation in Iraq develops is hard to predict.   

Roller-Coaster for the PGMs

It was a roller-coaster week for the PGMs. After a government mediation failed to reach an agreement between the unions and mining companies to end the longest mining strike in South Africa, palladium rose further to 862.5$/oz. Thus palladium traded higher than in late February 2011 and reached the highest level since February 2001. Also platinum rose, but remained below the high of the year, which was reached at 1,493.90$/oz on May 22.

However, after reports emerged that a wage deal might be in reach, both PGMs came under pressure and posted strong losses. It was a bit of buying the rumor and selling the fact, but it is at the time of writing just a hope that the mining strike will be over soon.

According to GFMS, the demand for palladium exceeded supply in 2013 by more than one million ounces. South Africa contributed 2.35 mil ounces to the total mine production of 6.4 mil. Ounces. Scrap recycling added another 1.9 mil ounces to the total palladium supply. With the long lasting strike, the mine production in South Africa is expected to fall significantly short of last year’s level. Thus, overall palladium supply should be lower in 2014 than in 2013. In late April, GFMS estimated that 0.6 mil ounces were lost due to the strike. Thus, when workers return back to work, the total loss could come close to 1 mil ounces. At the same time, the recovery in the European automotive sector points to an increased industrial demand. Therefore, the supply deficit might rise to 2 mil ounces or above.

From the high reached last Wednesday, palladium lost more than 50$/oz. In the short run, the price of palladium might retreat further. However, with the outlook for a higher excess demand, palladium should be well supported.

One question often asked was about the size of the price increase since the start of the year. Many commentators had expected a stronger rally given the duration of the strike. One possible answer is that palladium consumers hedged their demand right in time with options. In this case, the short seller of the option only needs to buy incremental amounts of palladium according to the change in the option delta to remain hedged. Another possibility is that consumers expected that prices would decline again after a wage deal is reached. They can secure physical palladium by lending from holders of palladium inventories, which do not need the metal for immediate consumption. These are mainly financial institutions and investors.

The rise of palladium to a new multi-year high had also a positive impact on gold and silver. All four precious metal have a common usage in the jewelry industry. Thus, they are to some degree substitutes. A rise of the price of one metal relative to the others is increasing the attractiveness to use one of the other metals as a substitute. Thus, the rise of the PGMs increased the attractiveness of gold in the jewelry industry. This explains that the rally of the PGMs at the middle of the week also pulled gold and silver higher. Also quantitative models (VAR) show that there is a stronger link between gold and platinum prices and a stronger link between silver and palladium.

Then the question arises, why did gold and silver prices increased further while platinum and palladium plunged? From our point of view, the answer is the recent geo-political developments in the Middle-East region. With the ISIS terror group gaining control over Mosul and moving towards Bagdad, the markets got surprised. Oil markets fear that the rebels gain control over Iraqi oil exports. Stock markets fear a negative impact on global growth and turned lower, with weaker than expected US economic data being another reason for taking profits. Thus, gold and silver remained in demand as a safe haven, while the PGMs sold off.