Where's the gold, really?

As the price of gold continues to float above $1,000, I do wonder where it all is, really. Thinking about the Federal Reserve, I suddenly remembered Joanna Southcott's box.

At its peak, the Fed held 12,700 tonnes of the metal, but it's hard to establish even what it claims to have now - try making sense of the prose the Fed issues on the subject here. Some think the vault now contains no more than a lottery ticket and a horse-pistol.

Could they be snorting with laughter over their glasses of Petrus as they look down at us trusting plebs?

The Federal Reserve is out of control

Here is a very worrisome point:

None other than disgraced senator Ted Stevens was the poor sap who made the unpleasant discovery that if Congress didn't like the Fed handing trillions of dollars to banks without any oversight, Congress could apparently go f*ck itself — or so said the law. When Stevens asked the GAO about what authority Congress has to monitor the Fed, he got back a letter citing an obscure statute that nobody had ever heard of before: the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section, 31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional audits of the Federal Reserve may not include "deliberations, decisions and actions on monetary policy matters." The exemption, as Foss notes, "basically includes everything." According to the law, in other words, the Fed simply cannot be audited by Congress. Or by anyone else, for that matter.

For the full horror of the runaway financial train, see the Rolling Stone article here.

How central market intervention increases inequality

This extract (highlight mine) from Robert P. Murphy's essay on the Mises Institute website explains some of the process whereby hard times help the rich get richer and the poor, poorer:

If the Fed doubles the money supply, in the long run, that will roughly double the prices of all goods and services. But if the Fed restricts the injection of new money into only the hands of a few privileged recipients, those people will be at a fantastic (albeit temporary) advantage relative to everyone else in the economy. They will get their hands on the billions in new dollars, while prices still reflect the old reality. The new money will then flow from sector to sector, pushing up prices as it ripples throughout the economy. But the last people in line receiving the new influx of twenty- and hundred-dollar bills will be much poorer than others, once prices settle down. Their paycheck was the last to rise, while they watched helplessly as more and more prices began doubling.

Denninger demystifies "the Fed"

You tend to get a clear and concise explanation from somebody, when they either blow their cool or are in a hurry to get somewhere else. Here, in a very crisp and useful post, Karl Denninger blows away the conspiracy theories surrounding the Federal Reserve.

He explain that his beef with them is that they are acting ultra vires (very damagingly), and notes that there is, unfortunately, no statutory penalty for their doing so. The caning will, he thinks, have to be administered by the bond market instead.

Some, like Eric Janszen of iTulip, would say that's exactly what the government intends.

Abolish the Federal Reserve

On The Big Picture, a rude but concise video by Neal Fox about the Federal Reserve. As his catchy song points out, its existence defies the Constitution - the same Constitution that made President Obama say his Presidential Oath again.

Yet again, I say economic issues resolve into democratic ones. The Constitution is very clear that the power to create money (using gold and silver) must remain with Congress; yet in 1913 that power was given away to a newly-invented quango, run by people whose names and organisations are not permitted to be publicly known (which secrecy gives rise to some very paranoid theories!)

Why wait until its centenary to abolish it? No "four more years", please.

And while I'm on, let's have a massive cull of quangos in the UK, too.

Is the right way possible?

The state is always and everywhere a danger, even when it has no monopoly on money and no printing press that can create money tickets at will. But a state with the ability to make its own money is a grave and relentless threat to prosperity and freedom. It leaves the future entirely to the discretion of the money managers. Every day we live under the threat that the United States could be the next Weimar Republic or even another Zimbabwe. All that stands between us and that day is the wisdom and prudence of the Fed.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jnr - talk given on 1 November 2008

Now, how do we mice bell the cats?

And if a foreign nation that trades with you uses currency inflation to support its domestic employment and its exports to you, are you prepared to see a slump in your own economy in order to maintain the integrity of your currency? Can virtue be rewarded, or is it (as seems to happen in this world) severely punished?

Is the USA still ruled by law?

The London Banker gives the US a magisterial damning, citing many instances of the Executive acting in ways he considers ultra vires in the financial arena.

This sort of talk from someone who generally appears to be a sobersides, echoing the volatile but technically savvy Karl Denninger, really does alter the tone of the debate. Read it yourself, and judge.

UPDATE

Jesse, too:

... Men sneer that outmoded laws and useless principles must fall to vital expediency so that we might be saved. The will to power begins to erode and overthrow justice and the rule of law.

And at certain times in history, in their fears and insensible numbness, people concede first the discretionary choices, then their moral outrage, then the weak, then their wealth, their freedom, and finally comes madness, and then the deluge.

And Tyler:

I'm afraid to say, we're facing much more regulation.

And much more government.

And much less willingness to trust markets.

We're in the Slough.

This is a sad, keening chorus of responsible bloggers.

Finance in Wonderland

We're in a surreal phase. As Denninger points out, there is no legal authority for the Federal Reserve to accept stocks and shares as collateral, which it is now doing ("was that a wooden horse that came in through the gates?"). There is an air of unreality - huge firms suddenly going down, one by one, while we're trying to make ourselves believe that it's all still normal, somehow.

And now that Lehman has bitten the dust, we shall see whether London Banker was right - whether Lehman was calling in foreign investments in order to give US domestic creditors an unfair share in the asset recovery scramble.

Twang

Jim in San Marcos borrows and discusses a chart showing homeowners' equity. As residential property prices drop, more borrowers move into negative equity. He says bank-owned properties (REOs) are already pricing-in a fall of 30%+.

"Examine the disappearing equity. It came from no where and is going back to no where."

That's what happens when credit becomes a form of currency, as the bullion moralists keep reminding us.

Why are banks allowed to create so much "fiduciary money"? Who does own the Fed?

Raving sane?

"Deepcaster" (Financial Sense, January 4) looks again at the mysterious ownership (and creation) of the US dollar by a private bank, the Federal Reserve. The more one reads about it, the weirder it gets - it's like finding out that ET really does exist!

The conspiracy theory here is that the Fed and other central banks are a cartel that not only inflates the money supply, but has created trillions in derivatives, partly to manipulate the investment markets. "Deepcaster" accuses this cartel of engineering drops in the gold price, just when you'd think gold should be emerging as a natural currency.

He brings in the Amero theory, too - ultimate replacement of the destroyed dollar by a new North American currency, presumably so the crooked poker game can continue with fresh cards.

Can anyone please shed light on all this? For example, who EXACTLY are the owners of the Fed?

If nobody knows or is willing to tell, perhaps one of us should claim ownership - "finders, keepers".

The Fed and King Canute

Michael Panzner directs us to John Hussman, who explains that the Federal Reserve's power to manage the financial system is very limited - the funds it provides are dwarfed by the amount out in the economy.

... the problem with the U.S. financial system ... is not liquidity, but the solvency of mortgage loans and securitized debt. The Fed's actions are not likely to have material impact on this.

This, plus Larry Lindsey's comments noted in my previous post, adds weight to Karl Denninger's continuing theme of inevitable deflation.

The Clashing Rocks

Martin Hutchinson (Money Morning, today) sees the Fed caught between a rock and a hard place: as the dollar drops, oil and commodity prices go up and so American inflation worsens; if the dollar is supported by higher interest rates, the already-frail housing market stalls and maybe dives.

It's said that the Chinese pictogram for "crisis" combines the ideas of "threat" and "opportunity". Hutchinson offers ideas for those who want to take advantage: invest in...

• Japan
• gold
• natural resources
• Canadian oil
• - and a Korean bank.

Another snort to keep going

Chris Ciovacco in SafeHaven today reads the historical charts and concludes that recent multiple Federal Reserve rate cuts are slightly bullish indicators:

... From my perspective, almost all the items above slightly favor the reflation trade over gloom-and-doom. However, the edge is small enough to remain diversified while keeping a close eye on the stock market's 50 and 200-day moving averages.

This would chime with Jim Puplava's assessment that "more of the same" will buy us a little more time until the system is exhausted, which he expects to happen around 2009 onwards.

The United States Federal Reserve: why the secrecy?

Two most interesting blog articles by the jokily-pseudonym-ed "Lord Higham-Johnson".

The posts themselves are far from jocular and those who may be tempted to dismiss them as conspiracy theorising must still recognise that there is nevertheless a case, of sorts, to answer; or at least, the scent of a story for the financial bloodhounds.

The first, from March this year, looks at the process by which the Federal Reserve came to be proposed, named and brought into being.

The second, today's, is a restrained fisking of an attempt by a teacher of economics to discount conspiracy theory in relation to "the Fed".

Money safety update - American banks

"I warn you, Sir! The discourtesy of this bank is beyond all limits. One word more and I—I withdraw my overdraft." (Punch, June 27, 1917)

I recently looked at the security of deposits in British banks, but what about the USA? As with my earlier post this morning, we find concise information included in a different argument, in this case about the American liquidity crisis.

In the USA, it seems that up to $100,000 in checking and savings accounts (per depositor per "member bank") is covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. There were two separate funds - one for banking, the other for savings (following the $150 billion losses in the savings & loan crisis a generation ago) - but they have been merged as from the end of March 2006.

There are three compensation methods used. One is direct payment to the investor, termed a "straight deposit payoff". The other two involve transfer of business to a healthy bank, with some financing from FDIC: these are known as "purchase and assumption" (P&A) and "insured deposit transfer" - full details here and here. (N.B. although FDIC prefers not to make a straight deposit payoff, as it is the most expensive solution for them, it remains an option - Sutton and Hagmahani's brief account skates over this point.)

The $100k upper limit for depositor protection is more generous than in the UK - and it seems to be 100% insured, unlike for the poor British saver. But, the authors warn, FDIC "only works when bank failures are isolated events, and will not work in a systemic crisis...or for that matter one really big bank failure."

Taking a more general view, the article explains that the subprime mess has reduced liquidity in the system, causing it to work inefficiently, which is why the Federal Reserve has pumped in more cash - accepting "toxic waste" collateral in return, and offering a discount on its loan rate to banks.

The authors have two objections to this assistance:

• it rewards bad behaviour and encourages a repetition ("moral hazard")
• accepting unrealizable obligations as collateral is inflationary, since it turns nothingness into money

Their prediction: a fall in the value of the dollar, and if the banks disguise their problems and fail to clean house, at worst a collapse of the financial system. The Fed has bought some time, but that time has to be used for urgent reform.