Dutch repatriated 122.5t Gold From US AND prepared for EurExit in 2012

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Dutch repatriated 122.5t Gold From US AND prepared for EurExit in 2012

As reported by Koos Jansen, the Dutch Central Bank managed to repatriate no less than 122.5 tons of gold from the US. Beside that, former Finance Minister Jan-Kees De Jager revealed in a TV interview that The Netherlands took preparations for a "Plan B" EurExit strategy in 2012 and even had a team working on this together with Germany, Germany-Netherlands.

We can be pretty certain that the gold has actually been shipped to The Netherlands, because both Koos Jansen and Egon Von Greyerz having known about this beforehand AND having known which global security company took care of the transportation.

However, someone tweeted an image showing a convoy of big Brinks trucks on their way on the A9 highway on March 4th 2014:

https://twitter.com/FrankKrake/status/440819278435323904

Brinks trucks on their way from Den Helder to Amsterdam

In the tweet, it is explicitly said that we are looking at Brinks trucks heading in the direction of (DNB) Amsterdam.

This is very interesting, because the A9 connects Amsterdam to the North, all the way up to Den Helder. And that is very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_Helder#Naval_base

The roads to the other big ports in The Netherlands (Rotterdam, Amsterdam) as well as Schiphol Airport are in the other direction. Also, it is hard to imagine for what kind of value transport one would need at least two heavy trucks, since fiat paper can easily be transported with standard armored vehicles. Besides, ECB HQ in Frankfurt is to the South...

So, it most likely was Brinks AND the repatriation started in or before April 2014.

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Koos' article

First of all, a link to Koos' article. Also take a look at the comments:

https://www.bullionstar.com/blog/koos-jansen/the-netherlands-has-repatriated-122-5t-gold-from-us/

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
The article about De Jager featuring our old friend DieselBoom

This week it also came out that the Dutch government has been taking preparations for returning to the guilder, and closely cooperated with Germany about this as well. Bloomberg did report on this, as did EU Observer:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/dutch-had-back-up-plan-to-reintroduce-guilder-dijsselbloem-says.html

http://euobserver.com/news/126605

An interesting detail from EUObserver:

That preparation included “practical aspects”, but the government did not print new national currency banknotes.

Beside Bloomberg and EUObserver, I can't find hardly any coverage on this outside The Netherlands, except for one article in German, which appears to be based on the NRC article below:

http://diepresse.com/home/politik/eu/4599427/Den-Haag-erwog-Ruckkehr-zu-Gulden?_vl_backlink=/home/index.do

In The Netherlands, this was widely reported by many main stream newspapers as well as the national radio news bulletins. Like for example the NRC:

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/11/18/regering-had-in-2012-scenario-klaarliggen-voor-terugkeer-naar-gulden/

The source of this story is an interview with former Finance Minister Jan-Kees De Jager in a TV program:

http://omroep.human.nl/medialogica/2014/de-eurocrisis-en-de-beeldvorming.html

My translation of the NRC article, which contains quite a lot more detail than the Bloomberg coverage, especially with regards to Germany being involved:

-:-
"Government had scenario ready for return to guilder"

by Eva de Valk.

INTERIOR During the height of the euro crisis in 2012, the Dutch government prepared a scenario to bring back the guilder as the Dutch currency.

This is reported by the TV program Argos Medialogica from the public broadcasters Human and VPRO, based on their own research. A special multidisciplinary team of, amongst others lawyers, foreign specialists and economists, discussed the secret emergency scenarios at the Ministry of Finance, according to a press release from Argos Medialogica. For the worst case a scenario 'Florin' was ready: a return to the guilder if the euro would fall.

The television program bases its findings on anonymous sources around the Ministry of Finance. A spokesman for the ministry conforms nor denies the existence of the 'Florin' scenario to Argos Medialogica. "We took every possibility into account, but aimed for a recovery of the euro," the spokesman said.

UPDATE 14:36: Minister of Finance Jeroen Dijsselbloem confirms to RTLZ that the government has indeed prepared for a return to the guilder at the height of the euro crisis. According to Dijsselbloem it was not possible to speak openly about this at the time, because it could cause panic on the financial markets. "So you prepare yourself, but you do not make it known. Very wise. "

DE JAGER: NETHERLANDS COLLABORATED WITH GERMANY

Former Minister Jan Kees de Jager confirms that different scenarios were investigated. De Jager to Argos Medialogica:

"The team usually arrived at Friday afternoon after the regular cabinet meeting at the Ministry of Finance, but could also be quickly available if we had to make a decision."

According to De Jager there was close cooperation with Germany regarding the preparation of scenarios:

"The fact that several scenarios were discussed in Europe was very scary already to some countries. They did not do that, remarkably. We were one of the few countries, along with Germany. We even also had a team together which discussed scenarios, Germany-The Netherlands."

Also, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) thought about returning to the guilder in 2012. In March of this year, President Klaas Knot said in the TV program College Tour: "There have been times then when when we started thinking about such scenarios within the bank and started making preparations. I never want to end up in that again."

-:-

Very interesting detail from the Bloomberg coverage:

"When asked about Germany, Dijsselbloem said he couldn’t say whether that country’s government had made similar preparations."

Apparantly Dijsselbloem forgot to consult De Jager about this....

It is remarkable that this data all comes out just a week before the Swiss referendum, including the statement of the Luxembourg ECB board member that the ECB should consider buying gold. Jim Willie has said a long time that Germany will sooner or later switch over to the Sino-Russian camp, because of their dependence on Russian gas and oil. And of course they remember very well what happened during the Weimar period and they are certainly not amused about the US spying on them.

So, now we have confirmation that Germany and The Netherlands have been preparing for the return of guilder / deutschmark / "Nordic Euro" AND both countries have been repatriating gold.

Of course, if there was close cooperation between Germany and The Netherlands in 2012, it is not far fetched to assume a "Nordic Euro" scenario, which might include Finland and Austria, was also on the table, especially considering the fact that the Netherlands did not print new guilder notes, according to DieselBoom. Also, it is not far fetched to assume that if there was a "plan B" in 2012, there is also one now.

Given that Russia and China are actively hoarding gold, one gets the impression that the current "worst case" scenario would include a (partially) gold backed "Nordic Euro" and/or and extended "BRICS currency" scenario. Given the Swiss plan to back their currency with 20% gold, this might also be a good indicator for what The Netherlands and Germany and possibly the BRICS are aiming for in the near future. After all, these kinds of numbers are chosen after careful considerations and consultations.

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
So, why did Germany not get their gold back??

This is very puzzling, indeed.

All right, what do we have?

*) The Netherlands and Germany took preparations for leaving the Euro and come up with some plan B, possibly a (partially goldbacked?) "Nordic Euro", possibly also including Finland and Austria.

*) The Netherlands likely really got their gold, given my comment above and Koos Jansen's statement: "From one of my sources I even heard which security logistics company is shipping the metal."

*) Germany already repatriated around 1000 tons of gold in 2000/2001:

http://www.silverdoctors.com/classified-report-germany-withdrew-1000-tons-of-gold-from-london-in-2000-01/

"The previously classified report reveals that the Bundesbank withdrew nearly 1,000 tons of physical gold from the Bank of England in 2000-2001, decreasing Germany’s gold holdings in London from 1,440 tons to 500 tons.

Let that sink in for a moment. Germany withdrew 1,000 tons of physical gold from the Bank of England at the EXACT TIME that gold bottomed and began its decade long bull run. Did Germany pull the carpet out from under the cartel gold leasing party and ignite gold’s secular bull market in 2000?"

*) Turd  talked about some strange gold vault movements two weeks ago:

https://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/6272/information-deemed-be-reliable

"Since it is easily verifiable that JPM has only issued/delivered 6,000 ounces of gold over the past five months, the primary question becomes just whom or what owns the gold that has been temporarily parked in the JPM Comex vault. Just by chance, we were able to catch 33 metric tonnes of perfect and precise deposits, followed by nearly 46 metric tonnes of equally perfect and precise withdrawals. Why was this gold parked for a while in JPMs vault? Where did it come from? Where is it now headed? Is this JPM proprietary gold and do these withdrawals, when combined with the greatly reduced delivery activity, indicate the JPM is on the verge of exiting Comex gold trading?"

It seems like we now have an answer to the question of who owned the gold in question. :)

Note the following detail: "Why is JPM's Comex gold vault down to just 662,000 ounces? This leaves it as just the 3rd-largest. It's now dwarfed by Scotia and only 15% the size of HSBC." - Scotia is a Canadian bank, if I'm not mistaken.

Note that Miles Franklin uses storage facilities operated by Brinks in Canada for it's offshore storage program which means they trust them (http://milesfranklin.com/default.aspx?page=Offshore-Storage), and that it were Brinks trucks which were photographed on their way from Den Helder (Naval Base) to (DNB HQ) Amsterdam... 

*) There is a Swiss referendum coming up.

*) Lots of things going on around Ukraine, including EU sanctions, likely in order to keep Washington happy, while hurting the EU Economy and Germany in particular, which does a lot of trade with Russia and is dependent on Russian oil and gas.

So, we have strange round number movements of gold in and out of the Comex vaults, while apparently some real gold ended up on European shores for a change. The paper movements could very well be what Jim Willie calls "gold in motion", connecting the strange Comex movements to both Scotia and the GLD:

http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-shanghai-shock-to-shatter-the-gold-market/

"The GLD Fund has been systematically drained for the last five years, its inventory under 800 tons. Great debate stirs over the actual effective zero level being around 700 tons, since gold in motion from the mining firm output is counted in the fund (Jackass suspicion). [...] An important indication of deeper corruption is evident in the Gold market. The once esteemed Scotia Mocatta has sold out. They have for the last year been providing their valuable bullion bank inventory of gold bars to the Wall Street hive. They are being drained effectively. The data is visible from the COMEX inventory movements, in a grand shuffle, often with Scotia the source. It is unclear why a respected august Canadian bank would sell their souls to the devil. Some deal was cut, which will not be entertained.

To be sure, Wall Street is running out of deep source channels. They have been using their Langley alliance to steal gold, like in Libya (144 tons) and in Kiev (33 tons) and elsewhere, maybe soon in defenseless Chad. The big untold story is the USGovt thefts of Saudi gold in Swiss banks. The royals are being tossed under the bus, no longer useful, except for photo opps. Despite the extraordinary measures, even with wars and disruptions, Wall Street is running out of deep source channels."

(speculative mode on)

Now let's suppose The Netherlands and Germany work together with the BRICS and Switzerland behind the scenes on some kind of transition to a new monetary system, partially backed by gold. In that case, they would need to take down the Comex, but no one wants to be blamed for doing so. 

So, it's up to the people of Switzerland to ignite the fire and thus the politicians can't be blamed. Since Germany already took precautions over 10 years ago, they already have a significant amount of gold at home, which is no longer in London nor New York. Now because of the Rotterdam harbor, which supplies both Germany and Switzerland via the Rhein, both Germany and Switzerland have an interest in keeping on friendly terms with the Dutch and all three countries have a tradition of "sound money"

So, why not play a little chess?

First, Germany drips a toe in the water to see what happens and then The Netherlands secretly moves "gold in motion" to European shores, cooperating with Canada. Then, just in time, they blow the whistle on both the "Euro exit" plan as well as stirring up the Gold pit, while Luxembourg also adds it's $0.02 by suggesting that the ECB should consider buying gold.

The end result is that Germany, The Netherlands and Switzerland are ready to join the BRICS camp and save their economies, while the vaults in New York have been drained to the bottom.

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
@Moderator

It looks like I posted this in the wrong forum. It should be in "Current News and Events". Can you move it there?

Update: Ooops, that's the archive. First post on the forum section. angel

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Egon Von Greyerz to his subscribers in October

Almost forgot. Besides Koos, Egon also knew about the gold repatriaton beforehand, as reported by KWN:

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/11/21_Man_Who_Telegraphed_Dutch_Repatriation_Says_U.S._Gold_Gone.html

First, here is just a small portion of how Egon von Greyerz telegraphed today’s stunning news to his subscribers on October 23rd, nearly one month before today’s public disclosure about the Dutch repatriation:

“We have heard from one very reliable source that repatriation of gold is secretly taking place at this moment from the USA to Europe. This is October 2014!

The information contains details about transported quantities by one of the global security firms being much higher than usual, as well as country of destination.

The mere fact that this repatriation of gold appears to be happening in secret confirms what wealth preservation investors have always known, namely that Gold should be held under direct control of the owner. That is the only proof that the gold actually exists.”

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Dutch gold repatriation by air, starting before March 4th, 2014

Koos posted an interesting tweet yesterday:

"RUMOR: Dutch gold was tranferred by airplane and repatriation was done 'quickly'. #DNB #BuBa #Fed"

That would rule out Den Helder naval base, were it not that at Den Helder there is also an airport, a/o used by the Dutch Royal Navy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Kooy_Airfield

So, we can deduce that the photograph tweeted on March 4th 2014, showing large Brinks trucks on their way in the direction of Amsterdam on the A9 highway, were most likely indeed transporting gold, which had been flown in from the US into the country via Den Helder airport, possibly using Royal Dutch Navy airplanes:

Brinks heavy trucks heading for Amsterdam

 

JY896
JY896's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
Hat Tips: 11780
Posts: 1122
Great stuff, lamare

I saw your post about the guilder/deutschmark planning on ZH, and briefly thought 'that name looks familiar'. Good to see you are a Turdite as well.

What makes this whole story even more interesting is that it in essence confirms Jim Willie's account on the possibility of the stronger (northern) EU economies leaving the weaker (southern) ones.

I wonder about the effect of these news on Bepe Grillo's mission yo take Italy out of the EMU, the CHF/EUR peg, and of course the SGI.

And, as always, I wonder about all the things we are NOT being told WRT the whole repatriation scheme.

__________________

Turdland Jobs Forum

Lamenting Laverne
Lamenting Laverne's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/24/2012
Hat Tips: 4189
Posts: 600
@ Lamare - Kudos

This is seriously interesting commentary from you and Koos. I started stacking x-notes after March 2010 to ensure I could pay my bills in a "continuing/strengthening" currency, in case my Euro-split hypothesis (not return to local currencies) came true, but I stopped again after things cooled down a bit. Having read through yours and other's comments on Koos' thread, I am wondering if it is high time to pick up "the habit" of x-note selection again. What is your opinion?

There was an article on ZH a while back from Russell Napier, who has struck me earlier as a very level headed person. I noticed that he was very specific with regards to the type of notes as well - hence telegraphing a possible upcoming change as well.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-12/russell-napier-declares-november-16-2014-day-money-dies

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
The details regarding the German position on the OMT.

The German position on the OMT program ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outright_Monetary_Transactions ) is very important to understand fully, because it defines the borders within which Draghi can operate. The German Constitutional Court is a force to be reckoned with, even though they are masters at "yes, but..." verdicts, which are (being propagandized as) appearing to put little in the way of the the technocrats in the EU, while in reality there is a mighty devil in the details.

They drew a big red line in the sand, which is that Germany is not to write any blank cheque whatsoever, the "but" which came after their verdict on the EFSF:

http://www.businessinsider.com/german-court-ruling-not-consistent-with-survival-of-eurozone-2011-9

"While the German constitutional court may have approved bailouts last week, anyone who says this was good news for the eurozone did not read the fine print in that 29-page document. [...] The constitutional court virtually ruled out permanent mechanisms like the European Stability Mechanism (the would-be successor to the EFSF) and the economic authority necessary to back up eurobonds because they would impinge upon the sovereignty of the German state. An expansion of the EFSF is only legal because it is temporary."

http://www.investmenteurope.net/regions/germany/german-court-rules-in-favour-on-german-participation-in-bailout-funds/

-+-

The court also ruled on the Monetary Union Financial Stabilisation Act giving authorisation to provide aid to Greece, and on law around providing guarantees for the European Financial Stability Facility.

However, it did not write a blank cheque for Angela Merkel.

It noted “when establishing mechanisms of considerable financial importance which can lead to incalculable burdens on the budget, the German Bundestag must ensure that later on, mandatory approval by the Bundestag is always obtained again.

“In this context, the Bundestag…is also prohibited from establishing permanent mechanisms under the law of international agreements which result in an assumption of liability for other states’ voluntary decisions, especially if they have consequences whose impact is difficult to calculate.

“Every larger-scale aid measure of the Federation taken in a spirit of solidarity and involving public expenditure at international or European Union level must be specifically approved by the Bundestag. Sufficient parliamentary influence must also be ensured with regard to the manner in which the funds that are made available are dealt with.”

-+-

So, in essence Germany can write cheques with any number they can get approved by the German Parliament, the Bundestag, BUT they are NOT to sign away the sovereignty of the German State under any circumstance.

Following the ruling on the EFSF,  in their ruling on the OMT they shoved the hot potato towards the ECJ, while making clear that Germany cannot go along with the OMT as it is now, because "it implies obligations that are not permitted by the German constitution".
 

There is a very detailed "working paper", which provides in-depth information about the current status of the OMT, which is that essentially Germany can under no circumstances be forced to provide any additional funding without approval by the Bundestag:

http://www.bruegel.org/publications/publication-detail/publication/840-did-the-german-court-do-europe-a-favour/ 

-:-

"On 14 January 2014, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (the German Court) made news. It determined that OMT is prima facie incompatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the legal basis for the European Union[1]. However, before delivering its final judgment, the German Court chose – for the first time – to seek the opinion of the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). The eventual resolution of the questions raised will have wide-ranging implications for the economics and politics of the euro, and for European integration.

[...]

The German Court’s decision has forced a crucially-important discussion on the state of monetary and fiscal integration in the euro area. Put simply, does the survival of the euro require that the political contract be rewritten? In other words, do member states need to – and are they willing to – transparently subordinate their national fiscal interests to help distressed member states? Or, can creative flexibility within the existing framework allow reliance on OMT-like measures that skirt the limits of the TFEU?

[...]

The future of the OMT is so important because even as it eased market fears, it exposed key fault lines in the architecture of the euro. In creating a temporary fix for the incompleteness of the euro-area monetary union, the OMT blurred the line between monetary and fiscal policy.  [...] The legal and economic question of interest is whether the OMT tried to bypass the intent of the Treaty by creating a de-facto fiscal union (a liability or transfer union in Bundesbank terminology). If so, without their explicit authorisation, countries had become fiscally responsible for the mistakes of other member countries.

[...]

The German Court has challenged the OMT on the basis of its congruence with European law. In the end, the German Court may, indeed, restrain Germany from cooperating with the OMT because it implies obligations that are not permitted by the German constitution. But for now, the task is very much on how to interpret the TFEU.

-:-

Note that the German Constitutional Court determined that OMT is prima facie incompatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the legal basis for the European Union. Prima facie is a legal term, meaning something like "at first glance":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

"Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance"."

Does this mean that the Court just looked it over and said "gosh, we really have no idea, but 'at first glance' one would say it's incompatible with the TFEU"?
 

No, of course not! They use the term "prima facie", because ruling over European laws, is out of their jurisdiction! The German Constitutional Court guards the German Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. They can not and will not decide over European law in general. Their only responsibility is to make sure that Germany operates within the limits of the German Constitution.

However, it should not be taken lightly that their "prima facie" "opinion" on the OMT is that it is incompatible with the TFEU, especially because they have made crystal clear that Germany can under no circumstance go along with a "permanent OMT", essentially because it would require Germany writing a blank cheque.
 

So, this puts the ECJ in a very difficult position, as expressed in the working paper linked above:

-:-

The problem is a simple one. The authors of the TFEU wrote a document that was consistent with the vision of the euro as an incomplete monetary union. That construct was intended to work on the basis of fiscal discipline by countries accompanied by default on debt held by private creditors where the discipline proved insufficient. The threat of the default was intended to focus the minds of both the lenders and the borrowers. Decision makers today have concluded that default is too costly but the alternative of completing the monetary union through a fiscal union is not politically feasible.

The fact that the OMT was successful in dampening market concerns is testament to the need for a fiscal union. It also is an indication of the size of such centralised fiscal resources that would be a credible bulwark against market speculation.

A democratically-validated, political path to a fiscal union has proven to be a receding target. This should not have been a surprise to those who have observed the evolution of the euro. The OMT, in effect, offers an apparently elegant technocratic solution to the euro-area’s fiscal union conundrum.

In highlighting the tensions between the TFEU and the OMT, the German Court is basically concerned that the OMT is a fiscal union by the backdoor. The ECJ could validate the current design of the OMT – locating the fiscal union in the central bank – in which case, the nature of the euro area will be fundamentally altered and the ECB will become a more political institution. Alternatively, if the ECJ were to determine that the German Court’s concerns need to be addressed by changes to the OMT – by imposing serious limits on purchases of sovereign bonds and requiring the ECB to claim seniority to private creditors – the OMT will be rendered ineffective.

There is a third option. And that would be to agree that the OMT is needed as temporary support because an incomplete monetary union creates intolerable risks. The ECJ would ask the political actors to meet their responsibility by providing a transparent and legitimate mandate for a permanent OMT. They would do so by jointly guaranteeing the ECB against losses incurred if a particular transaction ends in a default. That guarantee may never be needed. But it would focus the minds and clarify who bears the cost. Then Europe would have taken a real step forward.

-:-

The problem the ECJ faces is that were it to validate the current design of the OMT, it would force the German Constitutional Court to force Germany to withdraw from the OMT, because Germany is not allowed to write blank cheques, which would strip the OMT from additional funding by the Germans, essentially turning it into a paper tiger residing over an emtpy bag. Were it to rule that it is indeed incompatible with the TFEU, it would force it to be adapted along the boundaries painted by the German Constitutional Court, essentially turning it into a paper tiger residing over whatever funds countries like Germany, The Netherlands, Austria and Finland are willing to contribute, rendering it "ineffective".
 

In other words: not matter what, Draghi's "whatever it takes" bazooka will have to do with no more ammunition than the "Nordic" European Nations are willing to hand over to him, hence the recent "within it's mandate" addition to his mantra.

One more interesting detail from the ECB page on this program:

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html

"The liquidity created through Outright Monetary Transactions will be fully sterilised."

In other words: The possibilites for Draghi to launch a full-blown European non-sterilised QE program are ZERO, as in: "NO WAY!", while the OMT program is running on the leftovers of whatever contributions have been made in the past by Germany et al.

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Things we are NOT being told...

JY896 wrote:
And, as always, I wonder about all the things we are NOT being told WRT the whole repatriation scheme.

What is most puzzling is the question where the gold came from and why it was given to The Netherlands instead of the Germans.

Jim Willie wrote:

http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-shanghai-shock-to-shatter-the-gold-market/

"The GLD Fund has been systematically drained for the last five years, its inventory under 800 tons. Great debate stirs over the actual effective zero level being around 700 tons, since gold in motion from the mining firm output is counted in the fund (Jackass suspicion). [...] An important indication of deeper corruption is evident in the Gold market. The once esteemed Scotia Mocatta has sold out. They have for the last year been providing their valuable bullion bank inventory of gold bars to the Wall Street hive. They are being drained effectively. The data is visible from the COMEX inventory movements, in a grand shuffle, often with Scotia the source. It is unclear why a respected august Canadian bank would sell their souls to the devil. Some deal was cut, which will not be entertained.

-:-

So, if the GLD has been drained already (as Jim wrote), then it is unlikely the gold has been originating at the GLD, as some suggest. According to Koos, the FED data does show some withdrawals, but it would be odd if nothing from that would have gone to Germany. Koos wrote:

"From Jan-Sep the FRBNY lost 77 tonnes. The big question now is when did DNB start repatriating."

Well, it started on or before March 4th, if the picture is genuine.

I have taken a look at the DNB press release in Dutch (English translation in Koos' article) and it states that it shipped gold from the US, NOT specifically from "New York". It does mention New York, but only in the sense that 31% remains in NY.

Now of course, it is very nice (and probably intentional) that we get public outrage in Germany over why the Dutch got their gold, while they remained empty handed, but at some point (after the Swiss referendum) the Bundesbank will have to calm things down a bit. So, it is possible that the Dutch did not repatriate directly from the FED, while the Germans did get something in the order of 77 to may be 100 tons or so directly out of NY. 

According to Peter Boehringer, the supposed halting of the German repatriation was mostly a fantasy brought forth by the propaganda machine: 

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/11/19_Insider_Exposes_Shocking_Truth_On_German_Gold_Repatriation.html

"Some 37 tonnes were brought back to Germany in 2013.  We expect a little more gold to be repatriated back to Germany in 2014 and the numbers will be released at the end of the year.  So something is happening here, even though we are not satisfied. [...] I want the world to know the truth about what is really happening in Germany.  And the truth is that this historic movement to repatriate Germany’s gold is stronger than ever, especially in the face of the Fed’s clandestine activities and the Bundesbank’s refusal to cooperate.  But I am confident that in the end the German citizens will prevail and Germany will get its gold back onto German soil where it belongs because the momentum over the past several years is clearly on our side.  And I don’t care if the gold is not at the New York Fed, they can buy it back in the open market." 

In other words: Germany likely did continue their slow-motion repatriation effort, albeit out of the public eye.

Meanwhile, the Dutch could have used another channel to get their hands on"gold in motion" via Scotia and/or Brinks, the "deal that was cut, but will not be entertained".

If that is the case, then the Dutch may have sold their FED IOU's on the open market, probably the crimex, buying back "gold in motion" registered in the crimex accounts for Scotia/Brinks as being "in motion" between various Scotia/Brinks vaults. That way, the crimex would believe the gold was "in motion" heading for NY, while in reality it was heading for Europe. :) 

If that is the case, we would probably see some large withdrawals of crimex inventory out of Scotia and/or Brinks the coming days, resulting in a nice short squeeze, just in time for the Swiss to fire the opening shot for "operation payback" coming Sunday. The huge trading volumes on the markets do suggest something is brewing somewhere...

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Why not stack coins instead of "X-rated" paper??

Lamenting_Laverne_and_the_Scoundrel_Suctioncups wrote:

I started stacking x-notes after March 2010 to ensure I could pay my bills in a "continuing/strengthening" currency, in case my Euro-split hypothesis (not return to local currencies) came true, but I stopped again after things cooled down a bit. Having read through yours and other's comments on Koos' thread, I am wondering if it is high time to pick up "the habit" of x-note selection again. What is your opinion?

I had no idea what X-notes are, so I looked it up: 

https://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/04/the-euro-zone-x-factor.html

"Euro notes are not formally issued by the ECB, but by each member State National Central Bank. Each Euro note is accordingly marked with a prefix letter according to its issuer."

Germany is X, The Netherlands is P.

That did ring a bell, all right. smiley

The problem with fiat notes, is that they have a termination date. I have a $ 100 bill in my wallet, series 1985, which I can (allegedly) only convert into Euros at the "Grens Wissel Kantoor" (GWK, Border Exchange Office, located a/o in international train station), because ABN Amro does not do exchanges anymore, at least not in my local office. And even a bank in Luxembourg, where I converted a few other notes when I was there on a trip, would not convert this one. 

The same problem occurred when the Euro was introduced and you had stacked a few 1000 guilder bills outside the system. You could not convert these into Euros just like that, you had to stand in line at the GWK multiple times to convert one 1000 guilder bill at a time.

So, I would prefer stacking gold or silver coins over fiat any time, especially now that they are still readily available in "consumer level" quantities at fire-sale prices.

Still, it is always handy to have some local currency at hand, in case the ATMs are out and/or we get a banking holiday, but no more than you would normally spend in a month or two. Of course, in that case, it couldn't hurt to opt for X notes.

If you would want to stack local currency, I would take a good look at coins and opt for coins with a high Nickel and/or Copper content. That way you still hold metal in your hand, even when the face value returns to it's intrinsic value of zero. The bi-color Euros could be interesting:

http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/eurocoins/specifications

One and two Euro: "Outer part: copper-nickel; inner part: three layers: nickel brass, nickel, nickel brass."

"By reducing the use of nickel to the coins of 1 and 2 Euro, now only 8% of all Euro coins contain nickel. For the three middle denominations, 10, 20 and 50 Euro cents, a nickel free metal sort with a golden colour was sought after. The choice finally fell on a relatively new material: Nordic Gold. [...] It is a brass alloy, made up from more than 89% of copper, 5% aluminium and 1% zinc."

So, the outer part is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupronickel

"A more familiar common use is in silver-coloured modern circulation coins. A typical mix is 75% copper, 25% nickel, and a trace amount of manganese. In the past, true silver coins were debased with cupronickel. Despite high copper content, cupronickel is silver in colour."

The cent coins are copperplated steel, so I would not stack these... :)

The composition of the 1 and 2 euro coins:

http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/CDA/16plus/sustainability/copper9.html

"1 Euro: Inner: 75% copper, 25% nickel clad on nickel core Outer: 75% copper, 20% zinc, 5% nickel
2 Euro: Inner: 75% copper, 20% zinc, 5% nickel clad on nickel core Outer: 75% copper, 25% nickel"

Personally, I like Nickel, because it is being used in items like batteries, stainless steel and various other industrial applications. I have used old guilders, quarters, etc., which are 99% nickel, for electroplating using nothing but vinegar:

http://www.instructables.com/id/High-Quality-and-safe-Nickel-Plating/

Copper is also a valueable metal, well worth considering when stacking local currency coins. 

However, I would still prefer paper notes over a bank account any time. Personally, I am living on a rather limited support of fiat going from/trough my bank account, but my savings are in physical PMs and I have some Euro bills at hand in case the ATMs and/or bank accounts go dark. Beside that, I stacked a few items containing copper, which I would otherwise throw away, like a few old vacuum cleaners and some plumbing tubes, some wiring, etc. which I had left over anyway.

Oh yeah, and 0.2 Bitcoin, for "speculation". laugh

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Benjamin Fulford on German entering the BRICS

JY896 wrote:
What makes this whole story even more interesting is that it in essence confirms Jim Willie's account on the possibility of the stronger (northern) EU economies leaving the weaker (southern) ones.

Just read that Benjamin Fulford is now also talking in that direction:

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/intel/benjamin-fulford-pentagon-ready-take-action-us-nazionist-rogue-regime-now-totally-isolated/

The main thing is that Europe is distancing itself from the US rogue regime. Germany, France and the UK are no longer allied with the United States in any real sense. On November 15th, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin spent four hours talking alone with each other.

Merkel is fluent in Russian and Putin is fluent in German so they did not need any translators. Judging from various comments by these two leaders and their top government officials in the week since that meeting, the main topic of discussion was Germany joining the BRICS alliance. Other topics were: the splitting of Eastern Europe into Russian and German zones of influence, the splitting of the Ukraine, the use of German marks or Euros to pay for Russian gas and a free trade agreement between the German led EU and the Russian led Eurasian Economic Union. The French are also planning to pay for Russian oil and gas in either Euros of French Francs.

[...]

Another key US ally, Saudi Arabia is also moving towards the BRICS, according to Russian sources. During the G20 meeting, Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud spent a lot of time talking with Russia’s Putin. The gist of their talk was that the recent fall in oil prices is aimed at reducing the competitiveness of US shale oil production and not at Russia. They also discussed the possibility of creating a Muslim Federation designed in such a way as not to harm Russian energy and military interests in the region.

This reads like a confirmation of Jim's "swing states" turning towards the BRICS alliance...

lamare
lamare's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 1110
Posts: 163
Looks like Weidmann got the message

lamare wrote:

The possibilites for Draghi to launch a full-blown European non-sterilised QE program are ZERO, as in: "NO WAY!", while the OMT program is running on the leftovers of whatever contributions have been made in the past by Germany et al.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/24/ecb-weidmann-idUSL6N0TE35N20141124

The head of Germany's Bundesbank cautioned the European Central Bank on Monday about the legal hurdles it would face in embarking on money printing to buy government bonds, underlining its opposition to such a move.

The remarks from Jens Weidmann, who also sits on the ECB's Governing Council, raise a further question mark over ECB President Mario Draghi's ability to deliver after Draghi threw the door open for further measures to bolster the euro zone.

Draghi's comments last week were interpreted by some as meaning that buying government bonds with new money, a policy known as quantitative easing, could come as soon as early 2015. But he faces stiff opposition from Germany.

[..]

"Of course there are other measures which are more difficult, because they are untested, because they are less clear ... and of course they hit the legal limits of what you can do," said Weidmann.

"This is why discussions are so intense," he added, having earlier highlighted "high legal hurdles" to any financing of states.

[...]

Europe's top court [the ECJ] has already heard a challenge from a group of Germans [i.e.: the German Constitutional Court] to the ECB's first scheme to buy bonds to contain the euro zone debt crisis.

Announced in 2012, that plan was never used and has since been all but mothballed, but the ruling, due in the middle of next year, could have wide significance. An important signal will come on Jan. 14, when the court's adviser, whose opinion it usually follows, issues his view.

It looks like Draghi is about to have a religious experience come Jan. 14th. laugh

Note that the leftovers I assumed to be there, are actually non-existing...

p.s.: [notes in brackets are my clarifications]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate contentComments for "Dutch repatriated 122.5t Gold From US AND prepared for EurExit in 2012"