Options
More poor precious metals accounting - this time LBMA and Thomson Reuters GFMS
roadrunner
Posts: 28,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
Jesse's Cafe
The above commentary discusses an obvious change in the LBMA annual refining numbers from 6600 tonnes of good delivery bars refined in 2013....to 4600 tonnes as modified in August 2015. That's a 33% reduction or about 70% of world gold mining production. How do you lose track of 2200 tonnes of gold (in GDBars) for 2 years? Only 4 nations in the world have that much central bank/sovereign gold to be able to lose it.... (US, Germany, France, Italy, and IMF).
Moving the gold goal posts - conclusion is 18 pages down
In general, the LBMA made large alterations to all the silver/gold data from 2008-2013. That 2013 gold number was changed several times in Aug 2015 (6601 to 4848 to 4600). One possible inference is that the original 6601 tonnes represented gold ETF and other source conversions from London GDB's into Asian Kilobars via the Swiss refineries. And that would be a subject that western gold powers wouldn't want discussed. But, who knows? Anyone reading the report today for the first time would have no clue that there were large alterations to the previously reported 2008-2013 numbers.
Maybe it was just a "mistake." But, that's a $100 BILL gold reporting mistake (2013) considering the annual LBMA reported refining numbers from 2008-2012 ranged from 3545 - 4743 tonnes. If the 6600 tonne number was wrong you'd think someone would have caught that 40% increase back in early 2014. The fact that LBMA/GFMS didn't even comment on altering the number in 2015 is quite odd. If a major US corporation published the wrong inventory or revenue numbers by 33% and later adjusted them, wouldn't that raise some eyebrows? Wouldn't the reason for the change be documented? Just another in the long line of strange numbers published on precious metal's reports. It's not far from when the BIS decided to revamp the otc deriv's acctg in late 2008 and overnight altered the world's derivs from $1.14 QUAD to $683 BILL.
Speaking of strange. A few months back I mentioned the absolutely huge derivative's positions taken on by JPM in commodities and Citigroup in silver during the 1st QTR 2015. Citi bumped their otc silver/other pm derivatives from $3 to $50 BILL....a huge increase considering that entire market was only around $25 BILL before they stepped it up. The odd thing is that in the 2nd QTR, the OCC's derivative's report no longer shows that large Citi position in the first quarter numbers/graphs. It's as if it never existed. Yet, when you go back to the 1st QTR report, it's still in there...all $53 BILL of it. Aren't these guys smart enough to go back and at least make the data consistent between quarterly reports when they alter it later on?
In the 2nd QTR OCC report there is also 1 location where that $4 TRILL JPM commodity position in the 1st QTR has been removed (graph 3). But there is one other chart/graph still showing it. Maybe, OCC will wipe it out entirely so it too never existed. At a minimum, this is some pretty sloppy PM's/commodities reporting around the world.
OCC derivative reports
Silver/other PMs is graph 12 in the charts.
1st QTR
2nd QTR
The above commentary discusses an obvious change in the LBMA annual refining numbers from 6600 tonnes of good delivery bars refined in 2013....to 4600 tonnes as modified in August 2015. That's a 33% reduction or about 70% of world gold mining production. How do you lose track of 2200 tonnes of gold (in GDBars) for 2 years? Only 4 nations in the world have that much central bank/sovereign gold to be able to lose it.... (US, Germany, France, Italy, and IMF).
Moving the gold goal posts - conclusion is 18 pages down
In general, the LBMA made large alterations to all the silver/gold data from 2008-2013. That 2013 gold number was changed several times in Aug 2015 (6601 to 4848 to 4600). One possible inference is that the original 6601 tonnes represented gold ETF and other source conversions from London GDB's into Asian Kilobars via the Swiss refineries. And that would be a subject that western gold powers wouldn't want discussed. But, who knows? Anyone reading the report today for the first time would have no clue that there were large alterations to the previously reported 2008-2013 numbers.
Maybe it was just a "mistake." But, that's a $100 BILL gold reporting mistake (2013) considering the annual LBMA reported refining numbers from 2008-2012 ranged from 3545 - 4743 tonnes. If the 6600 tonne number was wrong you'd think someone would have caught that 40% increase back in early 2014. The fact that LBMA/GFMS didn't even comment on altering the number in 2015 is quite odd. If a major US corporation published the wrong inventory or revenue numbers by 33% and later adjusted them, wouldn't that raise some eyebrows? Wouldn't the reason for the change be documented? Just another in the long line of strange numbers published on precious metal's reports. It's not far from when the BIS decided to revamp the otc deriv's acctg in late 2008 and overnight altered the world's derivs from $1.14 QUAD to $683 BILL.
Speaking of strange. A few months back I mentioned the absolutely huge derivative's positions taken on by JPM in commodities and Citigroup in silver during the 1st QTR 2015. Citi bumped their otc silver/other pm derivatives from $3 to $50 BILL....a huge increase considering that entire market was only around $25 BILL before they stepped it up. The odd thing is that in the 2nd QTR, the OCC's derivative's report no longer shows that large Citi position in the first quarter numbers/graphs. It's as if it never existed. Yet, when you go back to the 1st QTR report, it's still in there...all $53 BILL of it. Aren't these guys smart enough to go back and at least make the data consistent between quarterly reports when they alter it later on?
In the 2nd QTR OCC report there is also 1 location where that $4 TRILL JPM commodity position in the 1st QTR has been removed (graph 3). But there is one other chart/graph still showing it. Maybe, OCC will wipe it out entirely so it too never existed. At a minimum, this is some pretty sloppy PM's/commodities reporting around the world.
OCC derivative reports
Silver/other PMs is graph 12 in the charts.
1st QTR
2nd QTR
0
Comments
is not quite legal or there are some really stupid amateurs that compile this data.
Cheers, RickO
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
But some folks are capable of critical and original thought.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Golly! Guess this news means that gold and silver will Zooooom all the way up to $1100 and $15?
Good guess...Gold is up a whopping $2.90 and silver, I guess it didn't read the article, is down by 2 cents.
Ricko, it's mostly people making assumptions about data they don't understand. Nothing us scarier than that which we don't ubderstand, which is why it's easy for so many to fall into the misinformation trap.
As Cohodk has just done by pooh-poohing an obvious series of screw ups in LBMA and OCC reports....your tax dollars at work - at least at OCC.
What I or anyone else who read the LBMA reports can easily figure out is that they were off by 33% for 2 years in annual refined GD bars. It has no bearing on where the gold price is going this week or even next month. It does show poor accounting standards....or a total lack thereof. The fiat bugs shouldn't read any more into than that. The only misinformation being provided to us is directly from LBMA and OCC. They make it too easy sometimes.
No surprise that some of the usual suspects can comment without even reading any portion of the simplistic information provided. And no, OCC is not Orange County Choppers though I'm sure some probably figured it was.
True derryb, lots of folks only read blogs and press releases.
But some folks are capable of critical and original thought.
Some people actually read the OCC and LBMA reports. It's what counts. There is no room to debate errors and oversights. Errors are errors. No opinions needed.
In that case, of what value is this information? Just pointing out yet another thing wrong with the world?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
It has no bearing on where the gold price is going this week or even next month.
In that case, of what value is this information? Just pointing out yet another thing wrong with the world?
Yes, that's the exactly the reason I brought it up....lol. We should all immediately stop identifying errors with any govt or corporate published data. We wouldn't want to embarrass anyone with accurate numbers.
Just "another" example of shoddy govt reporting when it comes to PMs or their enforcement. The information has value to those who value accurate and "timely" economic and financial reporting to ensure a level playing field for all participants. The fiat bugs will never get it. But, if the dollar or USTreasury bond stats were ever found to be goosed/rigged, you'd see the fiateers blow a gasket....and they aren't fudged, right?
There don't appear to be any of those around here. Bunch of hard money folks are we.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry