Hold your real assets outside of the banking system in a private international facility  –>  http://ift.tt/1M1FiG5 

 

 

Gerald Celente: Get Prepped For Global Systemic Collapse

Posted with permission from Rory Hall, The Daily Coin (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

 

 

More ridiculous predictable market action today. The worse things become in the real world the more frantic the stupidity becomes. The American authorities are clearly terrified that their world role as hegemon is being threatened and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that your fears of war will turn out to be a reality. – John Embry

It was reported last week that a Government panel is recommending that all adults over the age of 18 should be screened for “depression” – LINK. Nothwithstanding the fact that the term “depression” is a subjective concept, it exemplifies the move in the Government to control the population. It’s a frightening movement toward Totalitarianism that has been in motion since the formation of the Federal Reserve and the ratification of the16th Amendment, giving the Federal Government authority to enact an income tax. Both events occurred in 1913.

Make no mistake about it, the Government panel’s recommendation, if it finds its way somehow through Congress, is an underhanded way for the Government to implement gun control. We can’t have depressed people running around with guns in their possession. In addition, there’s no doubt that one of the big drug or hospital corporations has devised some sort of “depression screening” protocol which generates very high margin profits. Even better if the testing is covered by Medicare and Medicaid so the taxpayers can fill yet another big trough from which corporate America feeds.

The irony in the Totalitarian creep of the Federal Government is that humans don’t like the idea that they can’t control their immediate lives and living environment. Thus, they want to believe with surprising adamance that their vote matters – that they can control the outcome of an election with their “participation” in the process. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the modern Presidential process has become little more than the political version of “The Jerry Springer Show.” It’s like watching a slow motion train wreck repetitively with the now-frequent “debates” and “town hall” meetings.

Sorry. Maybe if you could vote for each of the well-funded 25 lobbyists per elected House Rep and Senator your participation in the process might matter. The only part of an election campaign that matters is the amount of money that gets apportioned by Wall Street financial firms, big pharmaceutical companies and the defense industry. Democrats who think Big Labor matters better think again – just look at the scale of the de-industrialization of America which has converted the majority of the U.S. manufacturing workforce into Walmart greeters and bartenders.

Perhaps the only safe refuge from this insanity and from the systemic destruction headed our way is to move as much of your wealth out of the fiat currency based financial system and into the safe haven of precious metals. Of course, Wall Street and the Government-controlled propaganda disseminators – otherwise known as mainstream financial media – are doing their best to discourage investors from even learning how to spell “gold.” It’s the barbarous relic of cavemen which you can’t eat and doesn’t earn interest. It’s about as useful as a Pet Rock.

What they won’t show you is this graph:

This graph shows the performance of gold (red line) vs. the British pound, euro, yen, Swiss franc and commodity index since Jan 2000. The elitists running our system don’t want you see that graph because that graph embodies the truth about the deteriorating economic, political and geopolitical condition of both the U.S. and the world. Better to have you focused on Trump vs. Cruz or Trump vs. Clinton. And Obama clearly doesn’t care because he now spends most of his time golfing in Hawaii and staying at his future $10 million enclave – paid for by the Pritzker Family and Company.

The Shadow of Truth hosted Gerald Celente for what we believe may be his best podcast interview in quite some time. It borders on cerebral and we presented Mr. Celente with several thought-provoking questions – we think you will enjoy this side of the world’s foremost trends forecaster:

 

 

 

 

 

 

When people lose everything and they have nothing to lose, they “lose it.” – Gerald Celente on the Shadow of Truth. 

 

 

Gerald Celente: Get Prepped For Global Systemic Collapse

Posted with permission from Rory Hall, The Daily Coin (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

 

 

Rory Hall, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Coin, has written over 700 articles and produced more than 200 videos about the precious metals market, economic and monetary policies as well as geopolitical events since 1987. His articles have been published by Zerohedge, SHTFPlan, Sprott Money, GoldSilver and Silver Doctors, SGTReport, just to name a few. Rory has contributed daily to SGTReport since 2012. He has interviewed experts such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Dr. Marc Faber, Eric Sprott, Gerald Celente and Peter Schiff, to name but a few. Visit The Daily Coin website and The Daily Coin YouTube channels to enjoy original and some of the best economic, precious metals, geopolitical and preparedness news from around the world.

 

 

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1P2E4xn Sprott Money

Moments after the “disestablishment” Ted Cruz (even if Goldman may have a lien or two on said disestablishmentarianism), was announced to be the winner of the Iowa Caucus, a most unexpected commentator appeared among the flood of the otherwise traditional Twitter noise with what can only be classified as the pinnacle of polarizing political commentary.

What is most surprising is that the source of this commentary was none other than the entity that is, at least in theory, supposed to be the most apolitical organization in the US: the Federal Reserve, and specifically the Fed which spawned current Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen: the San Fran Fed.

The tweet in question appeared at precisely 10:56pm Eastern, or 7:45pm Pacific, and it was the following:

 

Oh wait, that’s right: moments after the Tweet the Fed realized what an epic snafu it had done, and promptly deleted the tweet.

Luckily, we caught it so everyone can observe and enjoy just how “apolitical” the Fed, and its employees, truly are:

We wonder: does the San Fran Fed deny there is any truth to this tweet? Or maybe, like the Dallas Fed, it simply does not keep a log of what it tweets?

That aside, perhaps the San Francisco Fed and its staffers can explain what “matters”?

Is it Goldman Sachs? Or JPMorgan?

Or any other bank that the “Board” has decided it is time to bailout?

Because suddenly an entire nation is curious if not a state of 3 million Americans, then what exactly “matters” to the apolitical Federal Reserve whose purpose is to serve, well, the people of America?

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1NNVwl5 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

On a daily basis, I receive emails from associates in the UK and Europe that speak of the sheer madness of allowing refugees in the millions to pour into Europe. The riot in Cologne, Germany, by some 1,000 men who sexually assaulted 90 women, and robbed and threatened others, offers insight as to the scale of riots that we may expect to see in the future.

And the immigration of refugees is just beginning. The shock and horror that my associates express evidences that never before in their lifetimes have events such as these taken place, and that far worse is yet to come.

We tend to view this “scourge of the demon” as though it’s something new. Yet, in fact, it’s occurred many times before.

Randolph Bourne:

“War is the health of the State.”

When there is warfare, people will subjugate themselves to the state as at no other time. They will allow themselves to be taxed and used as cannon fodder, and to have their rights stripped away, as they are in an “emergency” condition that requires sacrifice but will (hopefully) be over soon.

Unfortunately, it’s not intended to be over soon. Perpetual conflict means perpetual increase in power by political leaders. Therefore, the leaders will claim that they want it to all be over as soon as possible, but they actually will seek the opposite. Of course, the people don’t desire conflict, so they have to be fooled into believing that it’s necessary. The Nazis had a thorough understanding of this principle.

Hermann Goering:

"Why of course the people don’t want war. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It’s pretty easy to stop the “invasion” by Muslims into Europe, yet we see the EU making threatening noises to all member countries that if they don’t open the floodgates and let them in, there will be hell to pay. The EU government itself is therefore creating the problem that it will later claim it’s trying to control. The wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and more) are intended, in part, to push tax dollars into the military industry and, in part, to create a distraction from the economic mismanagement of the central government. The creation of large numbers of refugees (both real refugees and opportunists) is an additional benefit to the government, as they will create disharmony and fear throughout Europe as they fail to assimilate.

Hitler used the Jews as his excuse for creating a police state and going to war. The EU (and its allies) will create a crisis, then invoke martial law as an “unfortunate necessity” in order to contain the problem they’ve created. Goering, Goebbels, and Hitler knew quite well that you first have to create a demon, then you can subjugate your people in an effort to control that demon.

But, in doing so, you need a good marketing programme. You need regular propaganda going out to work the people up into a lather.

Joseph Goebbels:

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

On both sides of the Atlantic, governments, with the eager but blind assistance of the press, are creating a crisis of epic proportions. It’s essential that they do so, as they have already created an economic crisis of epic proportions and they need a distraction from that problem—one which allows them control over the people and the assurance of staying in power. Throughout history, warfare has provided that power for one group of political leaders after another.

It’s also important to make the people feel helpless, so that they’ll turn to their government to solve the problem. Therefore, the ability for individual retaliation must be taken out of the hands of the people.

Adolf Hitler:

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

The EU government are presently causing the problem through mass immigration by refugees. But, surely, the very idea that such an influx of uncontrollable people could be a good thing is preposterous. How could anyone ever believe that any good could come of this?

Adolf Hitler:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and, eventually, they will believe it.”

The “Muslim question” has been made into a political issue. Conservatives who see themselves as “sensible” will oppose the immigration, whilst liberals who see themselves as “caring” will support it. The extreme polarisation between factions will ensure that the lie (as absurd as it is) will receive the immovable support of roughly 50% of the population of Europe (and countries abroad).

Still, intelligent people are saying to each other every day, “Don’t these politicians get it? Don’t they understand that this influx of Muslims is a disaster in the making?” Well, yes, actually, they understand that all too well, which is why they’re all on board.

As in both of the previous world wars, we shall see the charade play out again. Each country in Europe will, in turn, join the war with “the enemy.” At some point, Russia will get dragged in, either through an overzealous military action, or through a false-flag attack, and a world war will be on.

The US and Canada, at first, will just contribute armaments and advisors, but, eventually, the American people will be persuaded that, without their involvement, the Muslims will overrun America as well. If the Americans don’t fall into line on cue, false-flag incidents will be created that will cost American lives that point directly to Muslims. Again, this is nothing new. The Americans have been dragged into war repeatedly in the same way in the past.

The question is not whether Muslims will overrun Europe. They will. (That’s the objective.) The question is not whether there will be war. There will be. The question is whether you live in a place that will be safe when it occurs or whether your present location will become unlivable at some point.

Of course, there will be those who recognise that, in this game, their own government is not their friend. Some will choose to prepare an exit plan, should it become necessary. Internationalisation offers the greatest likelihood of insurance against the threat of an overreaching government.

Insurance, after all, is purchased not due to a certainty that something will go badly wrong. It’s purchased when a disastrous outcome is likely enough to warrant having that insurance in place.

*  *  *

Unfortunately there’s little any individual can practically do to change the trajectory of this trend in motion.

All you can hope to do is to save yourself from the consequences of all this stupidity.

We think everyone should own some physical gold. Gold is the ultimate form of wealth insurance. It’s preserved wealth through every kind of crisis imaginable. It will preserve wealth during the next crisis, too.

But if you want to be truly “crisis-proof” there's more to do…

Most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…

How will you protect yourself in the event of a crisis? This just-released PDF guide Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse will show you exactly how. Click here to download the PDF now.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1SUTU10 Tyler Durden

It’s now been nearly a year since the world woke up to what Beijing was doing in the South China Sea.

Early in 2015, satellite images seemed to show that China had embarked on a rather ambitious land reclamation effort in the Spratlys a disputed island chain claimed by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

As the months wore on it became readily apparent that this was no small project. Ultimately, China would build 3,000 acres of new sovereign territory atop reefs in the area much to the chagrin of Washington’s regional allies.

Especially disconcerting for the US was the construction of a giant runway on Fiery Cross Reef (one of the artificial islands).

It’s long enough to land military aircraft and just last month, Beijing began to land planes on the man-made outpost.

China also build a number of other things on the islands including cement factories, greenhouses, ports, and a lighthouse. 

Beijing contends it has every right to continue its construction efforts. In fact, China says it can forcibly expel other nations from the area if it so chooses.

As the summer wore on, the situation devolved into a war of words between Beijing and Washington with each accusing the other of acting “aggressively” in the Pacific. Each side also swore up and down that in the end, the “agression would not stand – man.”

The staring contest lasted until late October when, after months of deliberation, the Obama administration sent a warship to the islands in what Washington called a “freedom of navigation” exercise. 

Fortunately, China didn’t shoot at the vessel, but Beijing was profoundly displeased. The Pentagon patted itself on the back for reasserting America’s right to control the shipping lanes through which some $5 trillion in global trade pass each year and Washington promptly decided to conduct the exercises several times per quarter. 

As it turns out the US has so far kept its promise. Late last week the USS Curtis Wilbur, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton island. 

China is not happy.

“The so-called freedom of navigation plans and acts that the United States has upheld for many years in reality do not accord with generally recognised international law,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a daily news briefing on Monday.

Lu didn’t stop there. He also accused the US of “ignoring numerous littoral states’ sovereignty and security and maritime rights [on the way to] seriously harming relevant regional peace and stability.”

And just to drive the point home, Lu delivered the following sharply worded assessment: 

“Its essence is to push the United States’ maritime hegemony in the name of freedom of navigation, which has always been resolutely opposed by most of the international community, especially certain developing nations. What the United States has done is dangerous and irresponsible.”

What’s particularly interesting there is that it was just last month when we reported that Japan is set to build a missile blockade in the East China Sea in order to keep China from exerting complete control over regional waters. 

In other words, both sides say the other is attempting to establish maritime hegemony. Of course there’s one glaring difference: these are waters are nowhere near the US mainland. Why should the US get to decide what goes on in China’s backyard? 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PRflQ7 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Peter Diekmeyer via SprottMoney.com,

Ten years ago this week, Alan Greenspan left his post as head of the US Federal Reserve, facing disgrace among hard money advocates, which largely persists to this day.

However gold investors can learn an important lesson from how little influence Greenspan, one of the gold standard’s most eloquent backers, had during his 18-year tenure. A lesson that provides important clues as to future central bank monetary policy and its effect on precious metals prices.

That Greenspan was, and remains, a hard money advocate, is beyond doubt. His landmark article “Gold and Economic Freedom,” which was published in The Objectivist , an Ayn Rand-backed newsletter, fifty years ago this June, makes the case for a gold standard in layman’s terms, better than anyone before or since.

“Gold and economic freedom are inseparable,” wrote Greenspan. “The gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire (capitalism) and … each implies and requires the other.”

Greenspan’s advocacy of the gold standard was a hugely controversial position in the 1960s and 1970s and remains so to this day. That this is so is in an illustration of the economics profession’s almost total support for policies that have turned all Western nations into de facto state-run economies.

Why did Greenspan compromise?

That Greenspan compromised his views on gold is well-known. During his time there, the US Federal Reserve spawned a series of bubbles, that sowed the seeds of the financial crisis of 2007-2008, as well as of instabilities that remain in the system to this day.

However it is also fairly clear from comments that Greenspan made after his time in Washington, that he remains a hard money advocate. “Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidence, a premier currency,” Greenspan told a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations last year. “No fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it.”

It is also almost certain that Greenspan held that position during his entire time in Washington. Indeed one of his first acts, after he was appointed chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in 1974, was to invite Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, a hard money advocate herself, to his inauguration dinner.

Indeed according to a 2002 article in SmartMoney's Donald Luskin in a 2002, 40 years after publication of Gold and Economic Freedom, Greenspan apparently told Ron Paul that he stood by his text and "wouldn't change a single word."

Why did Greenspan compromise his most profoundly held views? Like most people the Maestro, as he became known, is a complex individual. A desire to advance his career no doubt played a major role.

However Greenspan, like many idealists, also likely believed that, by compromising his views, he might be able to change the system from within. Indeed there are signs that he was somewhat successful in that respect, as things got substantially worse after he left.

When Ben Bernanke took over as Fed chair in January of 2006, he eventually halted the interest rate hike policy that Greenspan had begun. Later Bernanke reversed all those hikes, cut rates to zero, and began the massive Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion, the effects of which remain with us to this day.

Redemption: lessons learned

However Greenspan’s most enduring contributions to the gold community may have been the numerous mea culpas that he has issued after he left office. Unlike many politicians, including Bernanke himself, Greenspan has been increasingly candid regarding his challenges in Washington.

For example the fact that even a brilliant hard money advocate like Greenspan, had little or no future, unless he towed the political line of those who appointed him, provides a strong signal that things are unlikely to change. Indeed in a widely cited background comment to Marc Faber, a newsletter writer, Greenspan denied that he ever said the Fed was independent.

The upshot is that if you believe Greenspan, despite the Yellen Fed’s current pause, the growing currency debasement spiral we are in will likely continue.

The question now is will be the effect of such policies on gold prices over the next five years? When asked that question last year at the New Orleans Investment Conference Greenspan had two words for the interviewer.

“Measurably higher.”

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/23FvSL1 Tyler Durden

John Cleese says political correctness has gone too far, especially on America's college campuses, where he will no longer go to perform. As BigThink reports, the very essence of his trade — comedy — is criticism and that not infrequently means hurt feelings. But protecting everyone from negative emotion all the time is not only impractical (one can't control the feelings of another), but also improper in a free society.

Cleese, having worked with psychiatrist Robin Skynner, says there may even be something more sinister behind the insistence to be always be politically correct.

"If you start to say we mustn't, we mustn't criticize or offend them then humor is gone. With humor goes a sense of proportion. And then as far as I'm concerned you're living in 1984."

157 seconds of Python-esque reality from Mr Cleese on just how silly all this PC-ness really is…

">

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1UELRCZ Tyler Durden

 

 

 

 

By EconMatters

There was a lot of profit taking on Monday in the oil market. Will we still finish the week higher after such a slow start to the trading week? Well we did last week, so it is not entirely impossible. Just another day trading in the oil markets. Actually pretty standard price action for a Monday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/23FqIyF EconMatters

Two months ago, we observed the record plunge in Hong Kong home sales when according to Land Registry data, a paltry 2,826 registered residential transactions were record, down 14.4% from October and what we thought was an amazing 41.7% less than in November last year. This was the lowest print in the history of the series.

Little did we know just how bad it would get just two months later.

As we said in our last check on the HK housing market, the weakness was sharp and widespread, with sales of new homes declining to a three-month low. In the primary residential market, the number of home sales also declined 26.4 per cent month on month to 1,023 last month, according to Centaline. The total value reached HK$8.97 billion, down 15.4 per cent from October’s HK$10.6 billion.

Latly we presented some comments from local analysts, who perhaps unwilling to accept the reality, remained optimistic:

“The fall in transaction volume and value for new home sales due to an absence of big project launches early last month,” said Derek Chan, head of research at Ricacorp Properties. He expects to see an obvious increase in sales of new homes this month given more major projects are due to be offered for pre-sale.  Most of new projects launches will focus in the western New Territories ,” he said.

We concluded in early December that while “optimism is good… if and when this global housing luxury weakness mostly due to the withdrawal of the Chinese marginal “hot money” buyer crosses back into the Chinese border, all bets about the so-called tepid Chinese economic will be off, and since it will be just the moment when China resumes cutting rates, devaluaing its currency and maybe even officially (as opposed to the ongoing unofficial iterations) launching QE, that will be when one should buy commodities, as China does everything in its power to keep the house of $30 trillion in cards from toppling and sending a deflationary tsunami around the entire world.”

So far China has only devalued, and so far there has been no effect on boosting commodity prices; meanwhile the deflationary tsunami is just getting worse as a result of the BOJ entering currency wars most recently by launching NIRP last week.

Which brings us to the latest Hong Kong housing data, and we can now officially say that any optimism about Hong Kong is officially dead.

First, as the chart below show, January Hong Kong home prices tumbled the most since July 2013, and after a 12 year upcycle, prices are now down a whopping 10% from the recent peak just four short months ago. Some analysts expect prices to fall more than 30 per cent by 2017 according to SCMP. 

In other words, the bubble has clearly burst.

 

But not only has the Hong Kong housing bubble burst, it has done so in spectacular fashion: as quoted by the SCMP, the local Centaline Property Agency estimates that total Hong Kong property transactions in January were on track to register the worst month since 1991, when it started compiling monthly figures. In other words, the biggest drop in recorded history!

Total transactions are likely to have hit 3,000, it said in a survey released on Sunday. With developers slowing down new launches, only 394 units were sold in the first 27 days of January, 80.3 per cent lower than the 2,127 deals lodged in December. Meanwhile, sales of used homes fell by a fifth to 1,276 deals in January.

A similar picture emerges from another survey by Ricacorp Properties, which shows 2,908 deals were lodged with the Land Registry in the first 28 days of January.

In other words, the market is in shock from the collapse in demand, and has effectively been halted until it regroups as sellers, clearly not desperate to chase collapsing bids, simply withdraw offers.

Sure enough, according to SCMP, “the recent withdrawals of government land sales as a result of poor bids and the return of negative-equity homeowners are adding to strains in a rapidly weakening Hong Kong property market, with analysts saying developers will be forced to cut prices aggressively to stay afloat.”

What is causing this unprecedented collapse? One explanation is the infamous Fed butterfly flapping its rate hike wings and leading to a housing market crash half way around the world:

Analysts said developers slowed down new launches after the US implemented its first interest rate in a decade. Hong Kong commercial banks are expected to follow suit in the coming months, pulling up mortgage rates.

 

“Developers have to offer very attractive prices if they want to find buyers for their flats,” said Derek Chan, head of research at Ricacorp, adding that developers might even have to offer units at prices below the secondary market.

There’s that, or there is the far simpler Chinese response to the Fed rate hike which has sent shockwaves everywhere from the Chinese forex market to the Hong Kong interbank market where liquidity a few weeks ago virtually disappeared overnight as the PBOC tried to crush and squeeze offshore Yuan sellers. It also means that mainland Chinese buyers, suddenly facing a draconian escalation in capital controls, are suddenly unable to park hot money in the HK market.

As for the local housing market expect it to remain in a state of suspended animation for a long time.

Developers are eager to add to their land banks when the market is good but may become more selective in tougher times, especially given the anticipated new supply set to hit the market in the next two to three years, said Chow. “More withdrawals will be seen if the government does not revise the reserved prices.”

And then there was the issue of negative equity mortgages which somehow have appeared despite just a modest 10% correction from all time highs. One can only imagine the kind of leverage involved in these transactions:

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) on Friday announced that the estimated number of residential mortgage loans that are in so-called negative equity had hit 95 as of December, according to its latest survey. The total value of these home loans amounted to HK$418 million.

 

This was the first time the surveyed authorised instiatutions reported negative equity cases since the end of September 2014, said the HKMA.

 

According to HKMA data, the number of homeowners with negative equity – before the phenomenon resurfaced again lately – had fallen to zero from its peak at 105,697 in July 2003 at the height of a property downturn when home prices plunged up to 70 per cent.

Amusingly, last February, the HKMA supposedly tightened the loan-to-value ratio to 60 per cent from 70 per cent for flats under HK$7 million. New owners hence have a 40 per cent equity buffer, said Chow, but said some negative-equity cases would occur among those who have borrowed from non-bank financial companies. That, or the regulations of the monetary authority were simply ignored because, just like in the US in 2005, housing could only go up: just ask Ben Bernanke.

Well, now it is not only not going up, but it is crashing, and if the situation on the margin is this bad in one of the world’s wealthiest enclaves, one can only imagine what is happening in mainland China.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1UELOXT Tyler Durden

Last week's obvious silver market fix manipulation will not go quietly into the night, as we are sure LBMA would prefer.

 

 

But it will not, as BullionDesk.com's Ian Walker reports, the world’s largest producer of silver, KGHM, has weighed in on last week’s hugely controversial silver price benchmark, which was set some six percent below the prevailing spot price on Thursday.

The LBMA Silver Price – the crucial daily benchmark used by producers and traders around the world to settle silver products and derivatives contracts – was set at $13.58 per ounce on January 28. This was 84 cents below the spot and futures price at the time.

Since this has implications for any transactions based on the benchmark, there is a danger that the credibility of the process will be damaged and that users will seek other prices against which to do business, sources said.

KGHM, one of the largest producers of copper and the single largest producer of silver in the world, called the difference between the prices “very alarming” and called on the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) to provide an explanation.

“The large discrepancy between the spot price and the fix is very alarming to us especially that it happened twice in a row,” KGHM head of market risk Grzegorz Laskowski told FastMarkets.

“I think the LBMA needs to make every effort to explain why it happened and needs to help to develop a system that would help to avoid these kind of situations in the future,” he added.

The ‘fix’ or ‘benchmark’, as it is now known, is still the global benchmark reference price used by central banks, miners, refiners, jewellers and the surrounding financial industry to settle silver-based contracts.

While some traders continue to use the 24-hourly traded spot price, larger players prefer the snapshot-style daily benchmark to settle bulkier contracts on a traditionally over-the-counter (OTC) market.

 

The price is set every day by five participants – HSBC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, The Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto Dominion Bank and UBS – using a system run by CME and Thomson Reuters.

KGHM produced 40.4 million ounces (1,256 tonnes) of silver in 2014, according to The Silver Institute’s annual report.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/20COhWo Tyler Durden

It’s here, the moment of truth.

The caucusing has begun in Iowa, the site of the first test for the bevy of candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination and for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who are neck and neck for the Democratic nod. Here’s a live feed for those who don’t want to miss a second of the drama:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Going into Monday evening’s proceedings, Donald Trump had surged ahead of Ted Cruz in the state for the first time since August. The latest poll from the Des Moines Register showed Trump polling at 28%, five points ahead of Cruz and 13 points ahead of Marco Rubio. The rest of the GOP field barely registered.

“A victory for Trump would give him a huge head start toward the nomination, paving the way for him to achieve the unprecedented feat of winning both the first caucus voting in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire,” the Register said on Sunday. “A second-place finish for Cruz could make his path to the nomination difficult [as] he was expected to dominate in Iowa, where fellow religious conservatives make up a bigger bloc than in many other states.”

“Donald Trump could win Iowa,” Stuart Stevens, a Maryland-based GOP strategist who the Register notes has worked on five presidential campaigns says. “But he has little room for error. He is almost no one’s second choice.”

On the Democratic side the race was a dead heat between Clinton and Sanders going into Monday. The Register showed Clinton has a slight lead, but for all intents and purposes, the avowed socialist was tied with the embattled former First Lady.

“We can’t afford to make a mistake,” Clinton told some 2,500 people gathered in the gym at Des Moines’ Lincoln High School on Sunday evening. “I want you to think for a minute about what the Republican candidates are talking about as they make their final appeals. They want to rip away the progress we’ve made. They want to rip back rights that have been extended. They want to go back to trickle-down economics that wrecked our economy.”

Earlier today we showed who was ahead in the money race going into primary season. Clinton, we noted, benefited from a number of wealthy donors while Bernie Sanders – who has eschewed the super PAC – managed to haul in $34 million in Q4 on donations that averaged just $27 each. 

For his part, Donald Trump essentially wrote himself a check for $11 million to spend on the campaign. His biggest expenditure: $941,000 on “Make America Great Again” hats. 

Here’s a complete breakdown of the spending by candidate:

And here’s a handy FAQ guide to the caucuses from The New York Times:

Q. Cut to the chase, how will I know the results?

The Democratic and Republican parties of Iowa are promising returns in almost-real time on their respective websites: http://ift.tt/1SmF3N8 andwww.idpcaucuses.com.

Q. When do results come in?

The state Republican Party says the first returns will be in around 7:30 p.m., and it promises to have results “fully reported back in just a few hours.” The Democratic results could take longer because Democrats caucus differently.

Q. Wait, what are the differences?

Republicans declare their candidate preferences by a show of hands or by writing out a secret ballot. The Democratic process is complicated: Groups of supporters for each candidate (or undecided attendees) sit or stand together in “preference groups.”

A head count of everyone in the room is conducted. If any candidate (or the undecideds) don’t have enough supporters — in most cases, 15 percent of the caucusgoers — the group is ruled “nonviable.” Its members realign with other groups, and a final count is made.

Q. What are the Democrats thinking?

It’s a disputatious party, what can I say. The fun comes when supporters of candidates try to persuade people in nonviable groups or undecideds to join their team. There are chants, debates about policy and electability, or maybe just the offer of a beer later on. As the state party puts it: “There is a lot of debating and moving around. It is democracy in action.”

Q. Do the Republicans get to argue for their candidates?

Yes. Before voting, a supporter for each candidate can make a two-minute speech to all the caucusgoers. Anyone can speak for a candidate. That includes 11-year-old Allisyn Shelley, who will speak for Donald J. Trump in one Davenport precinct. Some candidates will even visit caucuses to speak for themselves — because Iowans may not have fully memorized every stump speech.

Q. Do you have any videos of how it works?

The parties and some campaigns have made videos to demystify a process that can be intimidating and has kept turnout abysmally low considering the number of eligible voters. See this one by the Democratic Party of Iowa, this one by Ivanka Trump on behalf of her father, and this one by members of Bernie Sanders’s Iowa field staff.

Q. Can anyone caucus?

Only registered voters who enroll as Republicans or Democrats. Voters can register for the first time at the caucus site or switch their affiliation.

Q. Doesn’t that slow things down?

It’s possible, if a wave of unregistered or unaffiliated supporters show up, especially for the two candidates drawing a lot of support from caucus newcomers, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders. Caucusgoers sign in on arrival and register at that time. Anyone not in line by 7 p.m. Central cannot participate.

Q. How many people are at each caucus?

From as few as a dozen in some rural precincts to several hundred. John Tone, the chairman of Republican precinct 62 in Des Moines, is expecting more than 300 at his middle school caucus site, and the Democrats from precinct 62, who are also meeting at the school, expect more than 600.

Q. Pure democracy, one-person, one-vote, right?

Only for the Republicans, who report the total vote counts for each candidate. The Democrats are electing delegates to county conventions, who in turn choose delegates to a state convention.

The statewide winner on caucus night will be the candidate earning the most “state delegate equivalents,” which is reported as a percentage. That’s what you’ll see on the returns page for the Democratic Party.

Q. With all the hullabaloo that began a full year ago, Iowa must be sending lots of delegates to the national nominating conventions in July?

Of course not. It’s a tiny state, in terms of population. Democrats are electing 44 out of 4,763 delegates to their convention in Philadelphia. The Republicans are choosing 30 out of 2,472 delegates to their national convention in Cleveland.

You have a choice of how to interpret that: The caucuses are much ado about very little. Or, because these are the first votes cast, there is a lot at stake in terms of popular momentum, news media attention and donor love.

Feel free to spend the evening with “Antiques Roadshow.”

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/23Fnkns Tyler Durden