GOLD

[jinbal]

Using the Gold/GLD ratio of 103%, that suggests a Gold price target of $1030 per ounce,

from this single indicator.

 

That lines up withthe 38.2% fib retracement from the Nov 08 low to the recent high. I's also the previous all time hight hat took 2 years to break.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonalbe to expect a retest of this given how quickly the price action moved up in the last few months.

[romans holiday]

At the moment I can see the argument for both the ownership in commodities/assets and also that of liquidity through currencies. I think that until the country in which you value your 'store of wealth' in slides fully into either inflation or deflation it is best to try and sit on the fence because in that position you can if needs be alter the mix between commodities/assets and currencies. Time and the actions of both a countries CB and its Executive will denote which way an economy will slide. At the moment the possibility of a premimum in commodities and liquidity still exists.

I wonder if whether we see an inflationary or deflationary outcome, or both, makes any difference in a fundamental sense. Whether there is a flood of devalued cash, or only a scarcity of cash [which has become more valuable], there is less real money in the economy.

 

In both scenarios, real money has become scarce. In this sense, aren't inflationists and deflationists saying the same thing? They differ not so much about gold [being considered real/ power money], but only about the prospects for the native currency.

[romans holiday]

You're wasting your time then, on a philosophical value at least - because all value is subjective, and exchange/monetary/economic value in particular. The value of any one thing is measured in how much of other things it could be exchanged for. There is no constant in this process.

I kind of agree... but would slightly change it to "you're wasting your time on an objective value". If value is subjective, this does not necessarily undermine a basis for describing/ observing [psychological] value. Rather, it just undermines the way in which the "Anglosphere" tried to represent value in the objective science of economics.

 

I suspect Idealist continental philosophy could say more about value than the "respectable" and objective Anglo tradition of philosophy/ science. On the continent, philosophic traditions developed which layed more importance on the subject [ive], the ideal, historical development, and psychology. I'd suggest that these other intellectual traditions tell us more about the way in which we come to value things, and how that valuation can change, than objectivity, rationalism, or science ever can.

[romans holiday]

That lines up withthe 38.2% fib retracement from the Nov 08 low to the recent high. I's also the previous all time hight hat took 2 years to break.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonalbe to expect a retest of this given how quickly the price action moved up in the last few months.

Yup, I am sticking to a 900 handle being revisited sometime.

[Magpie]

I kind of agree... but would slightly change it to "you're wasting your time on an objective value". If value is subjective, this does not necessarily undermine a basis for describing/ observing [psychological] value. Rather, it just undermines the way in which the "Anglosphere" tried to represent value in the objective science of economics.

 

Absolutely - the fact that value is innately subjective doesn't mean we can't talk intelligibly about it, only that any search for objective value is doomed.

 

I think it's fair to search for something which makes a reasonable de facto measure of "constant value" simply for the purposes of a rule of thumb, which is perhaps what id5 really wants.

 

I just think it's always a mistake when people confuse that practical need with a more fundamental search for objective value - in fact I think that the desire to "believe in gold" is often strongest in people who have thought hard enough about money to become rather alarmed by how subjective and metaphysical value is - but rather than embrace that subjectivity they want to find something "solid" and "objective" that they can believe underpins value - thus one ends up with (eg) gold as real money, or the labour theory of value or whatever - anything other than accepting value is entirely subjective.

[romans holiday]

Absolutely - the fact that value is innately subjective doesn't mean we can't talk intelligibly about it, only that any search for objective value is doomed.

 

I think it's fair to search for something which makes a reasonable de facto measure of "constant value" simply for the purposes of a rule of thumb, which is perhaps what id5 really wants.

 

I just think it's always a mistake when people confuse that practical need with a more fundamental search for objective value - in fact I think that the desire to "believe in gold" is often strongest in people who have thought hard enough about money to become rather alarmed by how subjective and metaphysical value is - but rather than embrace that subjectivity they want to find something "solid" and "objective" that they can believe underpins value - thus one ends up with (eg) gold as real money, or the labour theory of value or whatever - anything other than accepting value is entirely subjective.

The problem is that today we have been largely conditioned to equate subjectivity with complete contingency or arbitrariness. So then we get the rationalists saying that sea shells are as good as gold when it comes to functioning as money. And then there would be a certain truth to this for a certain time... a contingent truth of sorts. But it has also been observed that though gold has not always strictly held a constant value over the imagination of the species, it has held sway for significant periods of time, across various cultures, with the tendency to reassert itself if neglected. I wonder if it could be fair to say there is some hard-wiring in the collective imagination when it comes to gold. Or perhaps I should say that gold is perceived to meet an economic need/ instinct [i guess I am appealing to the nebulous concept of human nature here].

 

I think the basis of money is primarily practical and not theoretical. If something functions as money it is money [practically speaking], and the thing that best functions as money would be the best currency.

 

As you say, there's certainly the desire for certainty and to "believe". I wonder if the economic instinct here is being conflated with another one.

[50sQuiff]

I think the whole metaphysical debate about gold is over-complex.

 

A universal unit of exchange and store of value has been an integral part of human economic evolution over thousands of years. Over time, gold and silver have consistently proven to be the most useful monetary commodities. So far in human history, each time we think we've found a better form of money - that gold is an 'ancient relic' - it's been an evolutionary dead end. The perpetrators are usually executed.

 

As an aside, progress, in the form of sustainable technological and scientific advances, has had absolutely nothing to do with the fiat standard. So far the fiat era has been characterised by unprecedented destruction and brutality.

 

[romans holiday]

I think the whole metaphysical debate about gold is over-complex.

I've always argued that the basis for the monetary value of gold is practical not theoretical. It just goes to show how much rationalism has generally got a hold of our minds that we sometimes have to engage in a theoretical discussion about it. If it was just left to common sense it would not be nearly so complex..... but then rational argument is a great diversion for the investor.

[littledavesab]

Not sure whether to be happy or unhappy that Goldman Sachs Godman Sachs may be on the same side of the trade (for now) - assuming this is not a ploy to encourage mug punters to the party

 

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/12/03...ast-to-1350toz/

 

The 2010 commodity outlook from Goldman Sachs has just landed in our inbox and a quick skim across the forecasts confirms the bank that previously liked to be bullish oil, is now also bullish gold.

 

Well relatively so, in so much as they’re raising their 12-month forecast to $1350 per troy ounce versus a previous $960.

 

Although they do warn that once the Fed reins in its unconventional policies and sets upon a tightening path, gold prices may come under pressure.

 

As they note (our emphasis):

 

With the US Federal Reserve expected to keep its short-term nominal interest rate target near zero through 2011, we expect the low US real interest rate environment to continue to provide strong support for gold prices in 2010 and 2011. However, as we also expect US inflation to remain subdued, we expect gold prices to come under significant downward pressure once the US economic recovery strengthens and the US Federal Reserve begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, an earlier-than-expected tightening of US monetary policy is the primary downside risk to gold prices in 2010 and 2011, in our view. In the interim, however, we expect the low US real interest rate environment, continued gold-ETF buying and reduced Central Bank gold sales will allow gold prices to continue to move higher. We therefore raise our gold price forecasts to $1200/toz, $1260/toz, and $1350/toz on a 3-, 6-, and 12-month horizon, respectively, with a 2010 average price forecast of $1265/toz and a 2011 average price forecast of $1425/toz. While an earlier than expected tightening of US monetary policy presents a substantial downside risk to gold prices in 2010 and 2011, we believe the near-term risk to our gold price forecast is skewed to the upside.

 

Meanwhile, they have actually cut their 12-month forecast on WTI oil to $92.5 per barrel versus $95 per barrel — the forecast acknowledging that a slower than expected recovery in developed market demand will have “pushed back the clock on global inventory drawdowns”.

 

Although that’s not to say they’re more sanguine on the longer-term price outlook. The analysts have introduced a 2011 forecast of $110 per barrel based on strong demand from emerging markets. As they explain:

 

[50sQuiff]

I've always argued that the basis for the monetary value of gold is practical not theoretical. It just goes to show how much rationalism has generally got a hold of our minds that we sometimes have to engage in a theoretical discussion about it. If it was just left to common sense it would not be nearly so complex..... but then rational argument is a great diversion for the investor.

 

I hear you. Plus, allying strong theory with empirical evidence never did anyone any harm.

 

I'm comfortable thinking about money and subjective value in theoretical terms, but not the monetary commodity itself. I think that's a side-issue, probably best viewed from an evolutionary and cultural perspective. I suppose this line of thought leads people to say "gold is money". I'm inclined to say "gold has been, is, and probably will be money in most cultures"

[Magpie]

I suppose this line of thought leads people to say "gold is money". I'm inclined to say "gold has been, is, and probably will be money in most cultures"

 

 

Absolutely. The former is a pretty meaningless metaphysical statement, whereas the latter is a useful and interesting observation - one can then go on to debate whether or not the current situation would or wouldn't be improved by a move to make gold more central in the monetary system once again. I'm not convinced that it would, but I don't have a problem with anyone who argues it would.

[surfdude]

This could be big. Hong Kong as a financial centre is about to mature. The Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange is set to begin operations early next year and is signing-up founding shareholders. It is set to launch its first product: Gold Futrues Contract in the first quater of 2010. That is probably why they are building a gold repository at the airport and they have asked for their gold to be returned from London.

 

I got the info. from this article:

 

Bank buys into exchange

 

Mandy Lo

 

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

 

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) (0349) has bought a 10 percent stake in the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange as a founding shareholder.

ICBC (Asia) is the second mainland government-backed investor in the bourse for commodities after China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, the controlling shareholder of China COSCO (1919).

 

However, the price of the sale was not disclosed by either party.

 

"Such an investment is an appropriate step as we are specialized in providing cross-border financial services for the mainland and Hong Kong while China is a very important importer of and trader in commodities," ICBC (Asia) managing director and chief executive Chen Aiping said.

 

 

Beijing-backed CITIC Group, China Resources (Holdings), Merrill Lynch and Barclays Capital are also potential strategic investors or shareholders, according to HKMEx chairman Barry Cheung Chun-yuen. The exchange is expected to launch its first product - gold futures contracts - in the first quarter of 2010, Cheung said last month.

 

The HKMEx had initially planned to launch fuel oil futures contracts as the first product type .

 

 

 

[Wanderer]

OK, back in to Gold. Could have waited longer, but was a good XXXg up so thought I'd quit while I'm ahead. Paid for my holiday....

[romans holiday]

OK, back in to Gold. Could have waited longer, but was a good XXXg up so thought I'd quit while I'm ahead. Paid for my holiday....

Good for you W. What kind of a percentage of your gold holding to you seek to sell at the peak and then re-buy? I know some of the better known pundits recommend something like 25% or so.

 

I would consider doing this wiith silver at some point, but for myself am hesitant to do it with gold.

 

Another option, and one I prefer, is to just hold your gold while refusing to buy more and accumulating cash. And then only buy further gold when cheaper prices come. This is more of a hedging strategy than a trading one [hedging against lower prices] but with potentially similiar results.

 

When it comes to buying, selling, trading, hedging, saving or whatever with gold, surely it has to come down to what your real situation is in regards to gold ownership [thinking primarily of percentage of liquid worth being in gold]... discussing those activities in that context rather than in the abstract.

[signofthetimes]

money printing leading to higher inflation, who'da thunk it ?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...NdhAQ&pos=2

 

 

 

[dietcolaaddict]

"She won't go below $1110 captain, even at maximum warp"

 

[allyjcambo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/persona...-the-price.html

 

Some 2010 prediction for the gold price. There are some differences at the margin, but the unanimous opinion is stay long.

 

The following comment from the above link sums things up best:

 

"The only way that gold can underperform is if the US and other developed economies recover in a conventional way by cutting spending and raising taxes while at the same time embarking on a period of stable economic growth.

 

This would prompt a strong and sustained rally in the dollar as confidence in the US economy rose together with bond yields and interest rates.

 

Given the significant challenges ahead, a muted and fragile recovery appears more likely. With the likelihood that the world will take several more years to heal the wounds inflicted by the credit crunch an alternative asset like gold will remain attractive in such an uncertain environment.

 

The price of gold may have risen a long way recently but in real terms is still well below today’s real price high of $2300 achieved in 1980. It is over-bought and is likely to see a correction when the dollar has a technical rally. Beyond that, gold remains an attractive each way bet."

 

[Jake]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/persona...-the-price.html

 

Some 2010 prediction for the gold price. There are some differences at the margin, but the unanimous opinion is stay long.

 

When reading stuff like this in the Telegraph always be reminds me of James Turk

 

Gold is now in its second stage, and of course, the worries don’t disappear. They never do because there are always emotional reactions that at first blush offer seemingly plausible reasons for not taking the right action. But there is a notable difference in this stage compared to stage one. Look how many people are writing and talking about gold. Gold has moved from apathy and neglect – stage one characteristics – to growing attention. But importantly, instead of embracing gold and analyzing it to determine relative value, today’s attention is one of widespread disbelief and skepticism that gold can climb higher. These are exactly the responses one should expect to emanate from stage two.

 

As gold climbs higher, we will eventually enter stage three. The timing of its arrival cannot be predicted, but we will know it has arrived when commentators who have been consistently wrong about gold will be telling everyone willing to listen to buy gold. But at some point in stage three when gold no longer is relatively good value, it is when I will be advising to reduce your gold holding by spending or investing it. We are, however, a long way from there, so my advice for now remains the same as it has been throughout this decade. Continue to accumulate gold. View it as your savings account. Savings are always a good thing, particularly when you are saving sound money.

 

by James Turk

 

 

[BlackPepper]

5 Reasons Gold Is Going to Rise: A Response to Nouriel Roubini

 

Scary times indeed.................. I think the US is going to fail and never will get better in the coming years

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/178111-5-r...nouriel-roubini

 

by: Daryl Montgomery

 

December 14, 2009 | about: GLD / IAU / UDN / UUP

The U.S. Senate passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill this Sunday, December 13th. Five other appropriation bills for fiscal year 2010 were previously passed earlier this year and one more still remains, a $626 defense appropriation. The defense appropriation bill will contain a clause to raise the national debt ceiling. The national debt ceiling is currently $12.1 trillion and the U.S. is tapped out once again. As of now, it looks like congress will raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion to $13.9 trillion. The last increase was only $0.8 trillion, but that would only last months at this point. Even with a $1.8 trillion increase, the U.S. congress will be fortunate if it doesn't have to raise the ceiling again before 2010 runs out.

The increase in the U.S. national debt is now so great that the monthly rise can be as high as the entire debt load in the 1960s (before the U.S. went off the gold standard). The U.S. is also by no means unique. The spending spree taking place is global and includes all major economies. In the midst of this spending and money printing orgy, there are a number of economists who claim it will not hurt the U.S. dollar and will be a negative for gold. In order to come to this conclusion, they have had to ignore a greater than 2000 year history that indicates otherwise. The Romans engaged in long-term debasement of their coinage and paid for it with out of control inflation. Since then, the use of paper money has made currency debasement much easier and quicker. Nowadays, central banks can create any amount of currency they want through a simple computer entry. What they can't create out of thin air is actual money.

History is littered with fiat currencies (currencies not backed by hard assets) that have failed. There is no fiat currency that has survived over time. There is also no case of currency creation that significantly exceeds economic growth that hasn't led to inflation. This idea is by no means new. Copernicus the famous astronomer was one of the first to articulate it in the 1500s. It is based on simple arithmetic. If you double the amount of currency in circulation, but the economy doesn't change in size, goods and services will approximately double in price. This does not happen instantly, however. There is a delay from when a government increases money supply and when consumer prices rise. In the 1970s, money supply in the U.S. increased by the largest amount in 1971, inflation peaked 9 years later, as did the price of gold. So don't expect to see the full impact of today's monetary policy actions until late in the next decade.

Economist Nouriel Roubini has just released an article on why the price of gold will fall. It should be kept in mind that Professor Roubini is an economist and not a professional investor. Unlike myself and a number of other bloggers, he does not publish when he buys and sells assets, but tends to make broad sweeping generalized comments. This approach is rarely helpful to investors who are trying to make money in the market and usually works to accomplish the opposite. Let's look at Roubini's five reasons gold will fall and deal with them point by point:

Point 1: The U.S. dollar carry trade will unravel.

Indeed this will happen eventually. I heard similar arguments made about the Japanese yen carry trade unraveling for about 15 years. It was finally replaced by the U.S. dollar carry trade. So if you are are investing now based on how the world might look in the 2020s, pay attention to this point and just hope you don't go broke while waiting.

Point 2: Central banks will have to exit their quantitative easing strategies and jettison their effectively zero rate interest rate policies.

For governments to keep spending, they will have to continue to print money. National debts are now so huge that a significant increase in interest rates will cause the interest payments on the debt to skyrocket. Even assuming Credit Crisis bailouts and related economic damage no longer necessitate massive government budget deficits after a few more years, rising payments for government retirement and health programs will. There will be no respite. If

http://seekingalpha.com/article/178111-5-r...-response-to-... 15/12/2009

5 Reasons Gold Is Going to Rise: A Response to Nouriel Roubini --Seeking Alpha Page 2 of 2

unfunded liabilities for social security and medicaid are taking into account (which is required when using GAAP ¬generally accepted accounting principals), the U.S national debt is not $12 trillion, but somewhere between $60 trillion and $100 trillion. The official GDP is approximately $14 trillion.

As for interest rates, real interest rates are not zero, they are negative. Only highly massaged government statistics which understate the inflation rate make it look otherwise.

Point 3: Global risk aversion indicates that the U.S. dollar will rise and drive down the price of gold in dollar terms.

There are a number of problems with this assertion. First of all there are periods when both the U.S. dollar and gold rise, as happened at the end of the 1970s. Secondly, there is an implication that gold will be rising in non-dollar currencies (gold has been hitting new all-time highs in dollars, pounds, euros and Swiss francs lately). Thirdly, the statement essentially means that gold will not go straight up in price and the U.S. dollar will not go straight down, like every other major asset in history. So what else is new?

Point 4: The carry trade and the wall of liquidity from central banks is causing a global asset bubble and all bubbles eventually crash.

Indeed we are in the early stages of an asset bubble, with early being the operative word. People said the same things about stocks for years throughout the 1990s and eventually the bubble did peak. You, of course, make the most money by investing in bubbles. How can you tell when they are ending? This happens when there is a meteoric rise after many years of strong rallying. We know the history (or at least some of us do) of how the 1970s gold bubble ended. Gold went up 400% in the last year. Silver rose almost 1000%. Double digit annual price rises like we are currently witnessing are simply ordinary bull markets. While there may be a peak in gold prices in ten years, we are not anywhere near that point yet.

Point 5: The price of gold could be pushed up if there are expectations that central banks will monetize their countries' debts, but this increases investors risk aversion and will lead them to sell gold.

There is no way that most major economies can pay off their government debts. Monetizing them by creating inflation is the only alternative that will avoid default. One only needs to employ elementary school arithmetic to figure this out. The price of gold goes up with inflation. Yet Roubini contends the investor risk aversion will trump this factor. This could also be restated as theory will be more important than reality in the markets -the essence of all of Roubini's arguments in a nutshell. Investors and traders know better since they have to put real money on the line every day.

Roubini's current missive on gold prices is not a new view. Only a couple of months ago he made some highly negative comments on gold just as it started to rally 20%. He was wrong then, but being wrong in the economics profession has never damaged anyone's career. Roubini is not unique in his views, but is one of a group of economic alchemists who repeatedly tell the public that government can create more and more of a currency and this is going to lead to an increase in the currencies value (also stated as deflation). In other words, actual money and value can be created out of thin air and by implication there is a free lunch. Considering the amount of inflation that history tells us is about to take place, there had better be a free lunch because few people will be able to pay for the real one.

 

[301ouncer]

The price of gold may have risen a long way recently but in real terms is still well below today’s real price high of $2300 achieved in 1980. It is over-bought and is likely to see a correction when the dollar has a technical rally. Beyond that, gold remains an attractive each way bet."

 

In 1934 there were millions of paper money in in the world banking system. In 1970 that moved to billions. In 1990 that moved to trillions. 2000 and only in the last 4 years we are currenlty nearly sitting on a quadrillion. Historical facts and evidence showed that POG has always in one point of history balances out the world money that is currently in circulation. In 1934 = $35/ounce and in 1980 = $850/ounce and again in 2009 = $1200/ounce. The next touch will be in 2019 - 2023 = $15000/ounce min.

 

All else is just noise and spin.

[romans holiday]

The price of gold may have risen a long way recently but in real terms is still well below today’s real price high of $2300 achieved in 1980. It is over-bought and is likely to see a correction when the dollar has a technical rally. Beyond that, gold remains an attractive each way bet."

 

 

In 1934 there were millions of paper money in in the world banking system. In 1970 that moved to billions. In 1990 that moved to trillions. 2000 and only in the last 4 years we are currenlty nearly sitting on a quadrillion. Historical facts and evidence showed that POG has always in one point of history balances out the world money that is currently in circulation. In 1934 = $35/ounce and in 1980 = $850/ounce and again in 2009 = $1200/ounce. The next touch will be in 2019 - 2023 = $15000/ounce min.

 

All else is just noise and spin.

Yes, but consider how much of that quadrillion is not really paper money at all but debt money.... or anti-money. This changes the equation quite a bit.

[G0ldfinger]

Yes, but consider how much of that quadrillion is not really paper money at all but debt money.... or anti-money. This changes the equation quite a bit.

Paper money is almost always debt money and therefore almost always goes hyper at some stage. What's the big deal?

[romans holiday]

Paper money is almost always debt money and therefore almost always goes hyper at some stage. What's the big deal?

Debt deflation and then a rush to liquidity. This is not Weimar. The Die Hard currency will not simply roll over here. Gold will also do well as the most liquid asset.

 

 

[bitbigt]

money printing leading to higher inflation, who'da thunk it ?

Me - once upon a time. But now I'm not so sure!!!

 

Everyones paying off debt, to a massive extent, and that is extremely deflationary

 

If QE were to push up the overall money supply dramatically, then I 'd expect near term inflation. But it isn't (QE is just compensating for the drop in money supply caused by debt repayments), so I don't.

 

If countries other than US and UK get back into growth, then they'll push up commodity prices, and when you couple this with weaker USD and GBP then we'll get uncomfortable inflation. And that's what I do expect, but not for a few years yet.

 

If government debt, and enduring QE policies, were to cause a complete loss of confidence in the USD (or GBP), then I'd expect a run on the currency and hyper-inflation. That could well happen, but of so (and if no plan B is pulled out of the hat) then it's still probably 10-20 years away. ...and gold could fall quite a lot before then!

 

That's what I'da thunk anyway

[chazza]

Gold Buying by Central Banks May Send Signal to Sell (Update1)

 

By Claudia Carpenter and Pham-Duy Nguyen

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Some of the biggest buyers of gold

may be sending the strongest signal to sell it, if past

performance is indicative of future results.

Central banks, holding about 18 percent of all gold ever

mined, are expanding their reserves for the first time in a

generation as a nine-year bull market drives prices to a record.

The banks will buy 13.8 million ounces (429 metric tons)

this year, worth $15.5 billion, for the first net expansion in

reserves since 1988, New York-based researcher CPM Group

estimates. Gold fell 15 percent that year and took another 15

years to trade again at the same price as central banks from

Switzerland to the U.K. cut their holdings.

India, China and Russia are now adding to reserves as gold

nears its longest winning streak since at least 1948. They’re

joining a rush as investors in exchange-traded funds amass

holdings to rival the biggest central banks. Clive Capital LLC,

manager of the biggest commodities hedge fund, had its best

return since May last month, led by gains in precious metals.

“This is late in the game to be buying gold,” said Peter

Morici, a professor of business at the University of Maryland in

College Park and former economic adviser to the U.S. government.

“Central banks are not known for their investment acumen. What

it reflects is a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy and the

long-term durability of the dollar as a store of value.”

Countries were also increasing their holdings in 1980 when

gold peaked at $850 an ounce, data compiled by the London-based

World Gold Council show. The record was exceeded 28 years later.

 

 

20-Year Low

 

 

 

They sold a net 4,880 tons since 1999, as prices tumbled to

a 20-year low of $251.95 an ounce, according to estimates from

London-based researcher GFMS Ltd. Prices began to recover in

2001, reaching a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 and trading today at

$1,124.44 at 2:00 p.m. in Singapore.

This year’s 5.4 percent slump in the U.S. Dollar Index, a

measure against six counterparts, is increasing the appetite for

bullion. While gold and the dollar are traditional stores of.......

 

BBG article, saying CB's showing the top...