Ovvero: Pararsi un po' il cul* in questo pazzo pazzo mondo di carte filigranate, iperfinanza globalizzata e picco delle risorse

giovedì 17 settembre 2015

Suchecki: Fractional Reserve Bullion Banking (parte 1)

Appunto qui, per ora, questo post di Bron Suchecki, blogger della Perth Mint, su come funziona il bullion banking

Unallocated bullion bank accounts are fractionally backed, no different to fiat banking. Indeed most unallocated accounts are fractional, as it is impossible to offer a 100% backed account with no storage fees unless you are a physical user of gold like The Perth Mint. 
Unlike refiners, manufacturers or distributors, a bullion bank has no real need for physical gold itself. Unless they are storing it on an allocated basis on which they can charge storage fees, having a (free, or very small fee) unallocated account backed by physical gold in a vault is, if not an outright loss, at least a not very productive and profitable use of their client’s gold deposits. 
Therefore bullion banks are incentivised to lend gold. This naturally leads to the question of how much do they lend and how much do they keep as physical reserves. The fact is no one really knows. Jeff Christian of CPM Group gave us an insight into the possible fractional reserve ratio here, where he says that most banks are operating on a 10:1 ratio, but notes that AIG was operating at 40:1. 
In terms of fractionalisation, it is important to distinguish between on-call deposits and term deposits. For example, if a bank borrows gold for a term of 1 year and lends it out for 2 years, that does not present any immediate risk of a bank run as the lender to the bank has no right to the gold now, only in 1 year.

leggi tutto QUI

12 commenti:

  1. quindi l'oro «unallocated» è CARTA
    piu precisamente carta con su scribacchiata la promessa di pagamento della CONTROPARTE
    e disponibile in quantità sostanzialmente illimitate
    finchè dura la FIDUCIA nel «sistema» o nella specifica controparte

    anche il «prezzo» diventa pertanto poco importante
    essendo il costo di emissione delle bullion banks ZERO

    l'importante è che ci sia VOLATILITA
    (e non è difficile, visto che il «prezzo spot» è un derivato dei prezzi future COMEX, ove le bullion banks possono «vendere» quantita illimitate di contratti, impunemente visto che i regolatori/commissioni/auditors non regolano una bella minchia)
    in modo da poter lucrare sulle escursioni di prezzo, essendo ovviamente insiders visto che le innescano loro, e facendo «stop loss fishing» e ricoprendosi anche in pochi secondi, sostanzialmente facendo il culo a speculatori/investitori/miners-che-fanno-hedging-ma-fanno-bene-perchè-sono-recidivi-troppo-coglioni

    ultimamente, visto il calo di oro DISPONIBILE ALLA CONSEGNA al comex,
    sembrerebbe addirittura che le bullion inizino a RICOPRIRSI IN FISICO
    e non solo a contabilizzare i guadagni delle ricoperture in contratti, come hanno invece fatto per anni

    discorso a parte per i GROSSI
    (vedi CINA)
    quelli prendono delivery
    e visto che si fidano molto, FONDONO e fanno RAFFINARE i lingos in svizzera,
    con uno standard un po' piu serio del ridicolo 990-995 mah? e peso «circa» 400 once del LBMA

    sicuramente GODONO dei (se non addirittura COMMISSIONANO i) «raids ammazzaprezzo» al comex
    (tu tieni basso plezzo olo, se no io vende 1 tlilione tuoi meldosi Tbond in quattlo minuti, capito neglo?)

    ahh, tempi interessanti, minchia!!

    1. noi plefelile lingottini da kilo, olo purissimo, glazie

  2. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/fallacy-buy-land-theyre-not-making-any-more

    The Fallacy Of "Buy Land - They're Not Making Any More"

    Submitted by Peter St.Onge via The Mises Institute,

    “Buy land — they’re not making any more!” is an old investing chestnut, and a common sense one to boot. Economically, it’s also completely false.

    As counterintuitive as it may seem, we make land all the time. It just doesn’t look like land.

    Why? Because land’s value doesn’t come from its ability to cover up the naked earth. Land’s value comes from its economic usefulness. From the value of things that can be done using that land (Rothbard’s “marginal revenue product” of the land). And that value is, indeed, changing all the time. Economically, from a price perspective, then, we make land all the time.

    Step back a moment and ask why land has value anyway. Why do people want land? Well, obviously, because you can put stuff there — including yourself — plus buildings, swimming pools, and factories.

    Now, anybody who’s visited West Texas knows there is plenty of building space in the world. You could drive for hours and meet nobody. There’s lots of space for that factory of yours. But it’s not really space itself that makes land valuable. It’s location. As in, there’s only so much room in Manhattan. Or Central London.

    Once again, though, it’s not the actual space that matters. It’s the access. Put a strip mall on Manhattan surrounded by crocodile-filled moats and snipers and it will have low value. The value is in access. So Manhattan is valuable because it’s easy to get to other parts of Manhattan. And it’s easy for other people to get to you. Customers, partners, and friends can all easily visit you if your apartment or office is in Manhattan, moatless and sniperless.

    So if it’s the access that matters, are they making new access? Of course. They’re doing it all the time.

    New highways, new exits, new streets, mass transit, pedestrian malls are being regularly constructed. These all effectively “make new land” because they offer access to existing space. They turn relatively “dead zones” into "useful zones," or new land.

    What are some of the meta-trends on land as investment, then?

    1. prima o poi, magari, alla fine, anche questi si arrenderanno alla "potenza della mano invisibile" e la smetteranno di accusare chi dice di stare all'occhio di essere "malthusiani" (fottuti)

      Persino su ZH, che ha un botto di lettori "il cambiamento climatico una panzana", i Tylers insistono con post sulla siccità epocale nel west ...

  3. ...

    First: roads. This was a bigger value-driver a generation ago in the US, as new roads made the suburbs more accessible, helping to drain many cities even as US population grew. Outside the US (Mexico, Thailand, Russia), new roads are still a big deal, and even in the US, new highways can reshape values — draining old neighborhoods and building value in new ones. The decline of cities like Baltimore or Detroit are partly thanks to those beautiful roads that redistribute access to the suburbs.

    Second: population. In the US “rust belt” of declining manufacturing, many regions have dropped in price simply because people are leaving. Detroit homes for $100 is emblematic, although of course there are also political reasons some cities are so cheap — in particular, taxes and crime.

    And that brings us to politics. Real estate can be cheapened shockingly quickly by taxes and crime, and those traditional drivers have been joined in recent decades by environmental politics.

    Environmentalists, by taking land off the market, effectively squeeze the remaining accessible locations. Driving up the price. Regions like Seattle or San Francisco are poster children of this environmental squeeze, with modest homes even in remote suburbs costing upward of a million dollars. On the other extreme, cities like Dallas or Houston have kept prices down despite exploding populations by allowing farmland to be converted to residential, commercial, or industrial use.

    Beyond the access and political angles, land is also vulnerable to “network effects.” In other words, the neighbors matter. Gentrification or urban decay can be hard to predict. Even in a compact city with rising population like Washington, DC, it can be hard to predict where the middle class or rich want to colonize, and where they want to flee.

    There are clues, of course — in large US cities, gays moving into a neighborhood, new coffee shops or art galleries are some leading indicators that property prices might swing up. But gentrification has it’s own mind; even in a booming city it might go into some other neighborhood. New York’s Harlem or Silicon Valley’s East Palo Alto are two very accessible locations with low prices because of perceptions of the neighbors.

    So, while they’re not “making” land, they are constantly making things that affect land price. Access, regulations, changing neighbors. These are the kinds of factors that make land valuable, not it’s ability to cover the earth.

    And so land comes back to earth, joining boring old commodities like wheat or copper. Just as vulnerable to changing supply and demand factors.

    And if you are looking for something they’re not “making more of?” Well, gold does come close. Hence its appeal. They do mine new gold all the time, but the costs are high enough that gold is a very “inelastic” commodity. It comes close to “they’re not making more.”

    Beyond that? Develop your ultimate resource: yourself.

  4. www.byoblu.com/post/minipost/il-vice-presidente-bce-fate-entrare-i-migranti-abbiamo-bisogno-di-lavoratori

    “L’Europa deve accettare i migranti per preservare la sua forza lavoro da una contrazione ulteriore. Abbiamo bisogno di più lavoratori per accelerare la ripresa“. Lo ha detto il vice presidente della Banca Centrale Europea Vítor Manuel Ribeiro Constâncio

    premetto che per me le frontiere non dovrebbero esistere,
    e ogni essere vivente in grado di deambula dovrebbe poter migrare DOVE CAZZO GLI PARE
    e pulotti, esercito e doganieri li metterei INVECE a lavorare a qualcosa di utile
    chesso pastorizia, ristrutturazioni edili o nettezza urbana

    detto questo, ma in BCE cosa cazzo si fumano?

    come conciliare una farneticazione simile con il 50% di DISOCCUPAZIONE GIOVANILE AUTOCTONA ?

    ma un test di logica, un INVALSI, un cazzo di colloquio con uno psicologo non glie li fanno, prima di assumerli in BCE?

    1. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPONZmKWwAAgZa2.png:large

  5. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-17/secret-behind-trumps-popularity

    alla fin fine, poi, han ragione il berlusca, renzi, e albanese
    "chiu pilo pe ttutti" funziona sempre

    il che dovrebbe porre fine a qualsisasi ulteriore sterile discussione politica
    tempo perso
    la maggioranza vota, e vota così

    1. se il "partito democratico" cambia la costituzione a maggioranza e/o voti di fiducia si potrà ancora chiamare democratico? Cerrrrto!


  6. Dove sei oggi Er? Ormai ti leggo tutti i giorni e non sentendoti quasi mi manchi :)

  7. hei Boss, che fine hai fatto?

    1. son scappato dopo una rapina ad un furgone Battistolli ;) .. ora sono ad Abu Dhab i :D