The idea of moving an asset ahead of a potential import tax is not a big surprise. But, the idea that the price difference between London and NY is big enough to justify moving $4b in gold — with all of the attendant costs/risks — is a surprise. I’d guess some cargo handlers at JFK might find that news interesting.
Does it make sense for European nations to store such significant portions of their gold reserves in the U.S., given the threat the U.S. poses to Europe?
Securing immediate control over assets, mitigating reliance on an increasingly hostile foreign entity, and addressing vulnerabilities highlighted by recent global events will need to be balanced against maintaining some reserves in a key financial centre for trading purposes.
Futures close versus PM London fix was 60 bucks today…that means a single bar of Loco London was worth 24K more for NY delivery than in London…Figuring in costs like Refabrication, shipping and lost leases (WAG coming up) they’re probably clearing 10K per bar (or more) plus increasing lease rates in London for their remaining gold) …4B was probably worth at least 30MM to 60MM in profit
I presume the idea is that you need physical gold in NY in order to arbitrage that price difference. That is, if there were some purely financial way to buy in London and sell in NY — without physical delivery of some gold in NY — the price difference would (largely) have already disappeared. (?)
London is physical and Comex is futures. They are moving gold to NY to deliver against their short futures position because it’s cheaper to deliver the physical from London than buy back the short at a 60 dollar premium over London
Not bad. Give yourself a couple points. In the lab, yes but not in the field. But i was referring to things like cyanide and mercury (although that’s natural too if you squint) .