Please Note: This article was first published at sunsoflibertymint.com
Should we trust what Goldman Sachs is saying about gold?
Should we even care what Goldman Sachs is saying?
Recently, Goldman Sachs, one of the premier investment banks in the world, announced to investors that gold prices would be dropping and that selling gold and other precious metals would be a “slam dunk.” (1) But just six days after this announcement Gold futures for December delivery added 0.7 percent on the Comex. In addition, silver futures for December delivery rose 0.4 percent; platinum futures for January delivery increased 0.6 percent; and palladium futures for December delivery climbed 0.3 percent (2).
So what happened?
Well earlier this year, in April, Goldman Sachs made a very similar call to sell gold, specifically the Gold ETF (GLD). At the end of August the details of the second quarter holdings were released showing that while Goldman Sachs was telling its clients to sell, the investment bank was buying into the Gold ETF to the tune of a record 3.7 million shares of GLD. This buy made Goldman the ETF’s 7th largest shareholder(3).
Why would Goldman Sachs clearly instruct investors to do one thing and act to do the opposite?
Perhaps this is because Goldman is aware that outside of the United States gold is being accumulated. The central banks of Europe (specifically Italy, France, and Germany) don’t plan to sell their gold holdings(4). In addition, as pointed out previously gold fever has broken out in the world’s second largest economy, China. China’s consumption of gold is more than double that of the United States and it, like many developing countries, is an advocate for “the return to increased gold reserves in its central bank” (5).
But maybe I’m being paranoid here. Or maybe not.
How is Goldman’s track record regarding gold recommendations?
Let’s go back to November 2007 when the investment bank previously advised to sell gold. According to Mark O’Byrne (Goldcore.com):
On November 29, 2007, Goldman recommended that investors sell gold in 2008 and it named the strategy as one of its ‘Top 10 Tips’ for the year. Gold subsequently rose nearly 6.4% in December 2007 alone – from $783.75/oz to $833.92/oz. Gold then rose another 5.8% in 2008 – from $833.92/oz at the close on December 31, 2007, to close at $882.05/oz on December 31, 2008. Gold rose 12.2% in the 13 months after Goldman’s sell gold call. Gold then rose 23.4% in 2009, 27.1% in 2010, 10.1% in 2011 and 7% in 2012.(6)
Goldman’s prediction ended up being abysmally wrong and potentially cost their clients, and the public-at-large significant amounts of money because of it. Goldman slashed its projected gold price 8.6% from $810/oz to $740/oz on a 12 month basis. By the end of 2008, gold closed at $882.05/oz – more than 19% above Goldman’s prediction.
But these could all just be innocent mistakes, right?
Maybe we should ask Carmen Segarra.
Who in the world is Carmen Segarra, you ask?
Good question. Carmen Segarra is a former senior bank examiner for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. She is a former bank examiner because she was recently fired from the Fed. She is suing the Fed for wrongful termination. Ms. Segarra contends that she was fired after refusing to alter her findings during a critical examination of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. As was reported in Reuters:
The former employee, Carmen Segarra, said that in her seven months of examining Goldman’s legal and compliance divisions, she found the bank did not have policies to prevent conflicts of interest as required by regulation, a conclusion that might have caused a downgrade of the Wall Street bank’s regulatory rating. (7)
It should be noted that Ms. Segarra’s findings focused on three specific controversial transactions related to Solyndra, Capmark and the merger of El Paso and Kinder Morgan, and had nothing to do specifically with precious metal policies. But Ms. Segarra’s lawyer said in an interview that “Goldman executives in charge of conflicts told Segarra and other Fed examiners that they did not have a firmwide conflicts policy” (7). So it is possible that conflicts of interest could exist throughout Goldman Sachs and not just in the specific areas that Ms. Segarra was investigating.
To answer the questions I started this article with:
Should we care what Goldman Sachs is saying?
Yes, absolutely. Anytime a major investment bank makes a statement of this type we should all pay attention.
Should we trust what Goldman Sachs is saying?
Look to the evidence. I think this is a case where actions speak louder than words.
Sources
(3)http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/guess-which-bearish-bank-bought-record-amount-gld-q2
(5)http://investmentwatchblog.com/gold-fever-in-china-a-signal-of-the-next-financial-crisis/
(7)http://mobilebeta.reuters.com/former-examiner-sues-ny-fed-for-alleged-goldman