Gold ETFs vs. Fort Knox

If Auric Goldfinger were around today, he'd be raiding gold ETFs, not Fort Knox:

Okay, okay, that's an exaggeration -- but only slight. Fort Knox purportedly contains 4,176 metric tons of gold, which is a little more than three times the amount currently held by gold ETFs. But at the current rate of increase there will be more physical gold held by said ETFs than by Fort Knox sometime in 2012. It's something Auric would have wanted to know.

[via FT]

Comments

[GMiki1]

If Fort Knok has the gold it claims, which we don't know since there hasn't been an audit in decades. Many people believe the government leased out gold that was never returned, in an effort to manipulate the gold price. Crazy conspiracy theory? See GATA, the Gold Anti Trust Action Committee. They have a lot of documentation.

2009 Feb 10 10:40 AM

[User 142738]

GMiki: When you lease something, the original owner still owns it.

2009 Feb 10 12:44 PM

[Richard K]

Original owner still has title to it. With a fungible asset like gold leasing amounts to selling with the option to buy an equivalent amount back later. When and for how much depend on the lease terms. If neither buyer or seller insists on lease termination, it is effectively a sale without reportability.

2009 Feb 10 02:00 PM

[yellowhoard]

Schmoke and a pancake?
Bong and a blintz?
I LOVE GOLLLDDD!

--Goldmember

2009 Feb 10 02:10 PM

[logicalsinger]

Interesting that the amount held by ETFs has gone up 50% in a year. Yet the price of gold has stagnated. Looks fishy.

2009 Feb 11 08:09 AM

[Mactiegre]

How can the GOLD ETFs track the price of gold without tremendous NAV adjustments for expenses : storage, security and transportation of the physical gold? The prospectus says that the ETF will sell holdings to cover expenses. Shouldn't that make the NAV have a negative correlation to the price of gold?

2009 Feb 11 10:51 AM

[Queen Isabelle]

Fort Know is goldless.
Last audited in 1953.
Kedrosky must be another "spin agent" for the Fed.

2009 Feb 11 01:33 PM

[Gabe]

Ron Paul tried to get a audit and they said "NO congressman, you don't have the authority to see it". If our elected representitives don't haev the authority to even see it and report back to teh people then who does? and why don't they want congressmen to look in the vaults?

is it because there is so much there and they fear Ron Paul will put soem in his pocket? or is it because it isn't really there and they don't want anyone to know? They leased it to Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan long ago, they in turn sold it into the market and have been earning money on the spread ever since...if they ever had to repay it they have trouble..but they know they won't becasue they are toobig and cnnected to fail.

2009 Feb 12 09:17 AM