Live data from Hacker News

Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

norberthaering.de

31–40 of 238 posts

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#31
post #9
post #3

"I am not criticizing the Bundesbank for storing 37 percent of Germany’s official gold in in a place there it has no control over it. It seems clear that they negotiated hard with the US and acted rather shrewdly." I am sorry, but as a layperson, I do not know what's to negotiate. If I own something, I should be able to take it home whenever I want?? This is mind-boggling. What's the point of property that you cannot…

> that's not property That's the whole point. The US government effectively treats other country's good reserves as their own. It was shrewd negotiation because they got much more than zero, and then US government/Federal Reserve has significant negotiating ability on its side by virtue of having the world reserve currency and the ability to impact monetary policy and systems so heavily on a global scale.

The blog post implies, without much proof, that it is the US Fed that is causing the gold to be moved slowly, which conforms to the blog posters political opinions.

It could of course also be that the German gold is not moving out of the US Fed quickly because the German central bank has promised it as collateral for something, or it is involved in some other financial deal. The Swiss for instance were able to move about this much gold out of the Fed during the same time period with no problems.

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#32
post #2

Bloomberg has a very interesting article on this topic also: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-05/germany-s... Reading in between the lines, it seems as if a good chunk of gold has gone missing and there is an attempt by both sides to save face.

> Reading in between the lines, it seems as if a good chunk of gold has gone missing and there is an attempt by both sides to save face.

Or more likely: you do not want to cause any confusion in the markets. Ultimately the state of that gold has very little impact on the world as it moves. However any speculation about it, potentially can have impact (and most likely not positive one). When people in Europe started to question the state of that Gold Germany and other countries had to act in some form.

So for as long as the general population does not further dig into the issue (or we have some sort of cataclysmic event) the gold does not matter all that much.

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#34
When we build systems, we run tests to see if they actually work the way we think the should. We verify, as independently as possible, because it is important.

What would happen if we went to evidence based banking instead of just taking the word of people with obvious ulterior motives.

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#35
> Switzerland is a small, neutral country without a serious army. They would hardly refuse to hand the gold back on request.

This guy is suggesting that Germany could invade Switzerland if they refuse to give back their gold, so this is a good reason to keep it there. I'm pretty sure such action would be illegal under UN rules, ie: you can't invade a country because they don't give you back your posession.

And Switzerland neutrality is highly debatable given that it's surrounded by NATO and part in a lot of EU mechanisms.

Also, an invasion would make no sense under the writers own assumption, that something is wrong in the gold market. A war in the heart of Europe will tank a lot of markets.

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#36
> Gold is money, which is based on physical ownership, not on trust in the willingness and ability of another party to honor their promises. If you have gold, but you do not have it under your control, it is almost pointless to have gold.

Really digging this one. That's why I proactively not listen to investors/consultants who suggest to buy some gold derivates for savety purposes.

In other regards: What's the point of the author? That's how the "king's peace" works since forever. Having the biggest stick and control over the valuable stuff makes you the king. And as long as you provide a stable leadership live of people is mostly peaceful. That's why people are willing to accept this trade. It's unfair but we actually want it that way. And what should the others do? Say "yeah, we totally accept that he has us by the balls"? No they act like it would be their decision so that they also keep some of their own power.

It seems the author is smart enough to know all this, so seriously: What's he attempting to achieve here?

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#37
post #35

> Switzerland is a small, neutral country without a serious army. They would hardly refuse to hand the gold back on request. This guy is suggesting that Germany could invade Switzerland if they refuse to give back their gold, so this is a good reason to keep it there. I'm pretty sure such action would be illegal under UN rules, ie: you can't invade a country because they don't give you back your posession. And Switze…

As Russia-Ukraine has shown you can take stuff by force without creating big scale war. And remember how Hitler just went state shopping before there was a war?

The thing about war is that most party's don't really want it. So sometimes it's possible to grab some advantage that theoretically should result in war.

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#38
post #2

Bloomberg has a very interesting article on this topic also: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-05/germany-s... Reading in between the lines, it seems as if a good chunk of gold has gone missing and there is an attempt by both sides to save face.

Ah that reminds me so much of Game of Thrones were this one dude builds all his power and businesses based on an empty vault and a promise of what is inside.

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#39

" It seems clear that they negotiated hard with the US and acted rather shrewdly." I do not even understand why one country would need to negotiate about their properties held abroad. There are two reasons I can come up with right now: - Country A holding assets of Country B wants leverage over Country B or - Country A does not hold 100% of these assets any longer

Because "possession is 9/10ths of the law."

Re: Why Deutsche Bundesbank had to promise to leave 1200 tons of gold in New York

#40

" It seems clear that they negotiated hard with the US and acted rather shrewdly." I do not even understand why one country would need to negotiate about their properties held abroad. There are two reasons I can come up with right now: - Country A holding assets of Country B wants leverage over Country B or - Country A does not hold 100% of these assets any longer

Centuries ago countries, or strongmen anyway, used to formalize allegiances by trading human hostages. We're friends for all eternity because your cousin is a valued "guest" of my court and vice versa. We do that with central banks and gold now a days.

So keeping a relationship of balanced trust, yanking assets from one location will have an equal and opposite reaction probably in a completely different form somewhere else. The manipulated currency exchange rates will wiggle. Imported black forest cuckoo clocks will get a different tariff. The ratio of central bank interest rates will wiggle. Sometimes 3rd parties get roped into the deal so perhaps the GBP-USD ratio will wiggle in some manner. Something is gonna happen to balance it and you can either control what happens, influence what happens, or toss hands in air and hope the free market does the right thing. A lot of people are paid a lot of money to not do the later, so you can generally assume that politician-like or IT consultant-like, the strongly advised reaction by the people is never for their paycheck writing organization to do nothing.

So something of equal and opposite reaction, probably agreed upon ahead of time, is about to happen.

Ideally in some sort of pacifistic utopia it would be illegal for citizens to store movable assets in-country or invest locally. We're rather unlikely to bomb Germany again anytime soon, or unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, but it is sad to see the old (by my human lifespan standards) relationship on shakier grounds. Oh well.

Post reply on HN