Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gold Price - Where is it heading?

that was just one small ( border-line critical mass )device

Russian has THOUSANDS of much bigger warheads and the new hyper-sonic ones don't even seem to need a payload the heat/plasma triggers the reactions in the target area

but since Russia hasn't threatened that , MAYBE they believe the vaults are virtually empty

do they sit around in storage , and are NOT moved from bay to bay to settle major account moves

now i still think the bars are just heavily over-committed , but until the forensic audit .. the rumors and theories will multiply for example how much stolen gold ( from other nations is in there) .. somebody looted Iraq and Libya

Entirely valid point about modern nukes being far heftier than Little Boy, but still, the gold at Fort Knox is held in a subterranian vault, not just sitting in a building on the surface.
 
Interesting! I did some quick looking into it. Even if you do bring your gold bars out of the subterranian vault to count them in the sunlight and that's when the Russians nuke you, the radiation will transform the gold197 to gold198, which has a half life of 2.7 days. So it would only be radioactive for about a week.

So much for that built in theft deterrent option.
 
Entirely valid point about modern nukes being far heftier than Little Boy, but still, the gold at Fort Knox is held in a subterranian vault, not just sitting in a building on the surface.
that can be handled as well deep penetration missiles and nukes in a combination ( increasing the chances the defenses would be overwhelmed , and a better chance of at least partial success )

what it they were just happy with melting it into a huge puddle , although that might be the preference of some local actors
 
Interesting! I did some quick looking into it. Even if you do bring your gold bars out of the subterranian vault to count them in the sunlight and that's when the Russians nuke you, the radiation will transform the gold197 to gold198, which has a half life of 2.7 days. So it would only be radioactive for about a week.

So much for that built in theft deterrent option.
one would assume each vault would be emptied one at a time and shifted to a different vault after auditing ( one would assume only suspect bars would be drilled/assayed ) you have very accurate scales and other tools to check most bars without invasive examination ( otherwise they would never find mineral deposits deep underground by aerial survey )

surely Fort Knox would still have SOME vacant storage space .

ALSO rumors suggest there is another storage facility in parallel to Fort Knox ( in the US )
 
one would assume each vault would be emptied one at a time and shifted to a different vault after auditing ( one would assume only suspect bars would be drilled/assayed ) you have very accurate scales and other tools to check most bars without invasive examination ( otherwise they would never find mineral deposits deep underground by aerial survey )

surely Fort Knox would still have SOME vacant storage space .

ALSO rumors suggest there is another storage facility in parallel to Fort Knox ( in the US )

If they did succeed in melting it all into a radioactive puddle, you'd have to wait a week or two before safely handling your pretty golden puddle-shaped nugget and remelting it into bars. Not what you wanted to do with your afternoon, but it wouldn't destroy the gold.

I was being a little silly about bringing the gold to the surface for counting, of course they'd do it all underground in the vault, and if for some reason they did bring it to the surface it would only be a little at a time.

I could be wrong but I believe these days they have devices which can reliably assess gold without having to drill, cut or melt it, so you can non invasively confirm that you have a solid gold bar rather than a gold-plated gold-weighing alloy. There are various methods to test the surface is genuine gold, and ultrasonic testing can confirm if the material is homogenous or has been plated or is made of different types of materials. If it was me I'd still want to drill a few random bars though.

A quick web search tells me that while the exact depth is secret for security reasons, it's something around 27 metres below ground level. Assuming that's the case, it would be pretty impressive to get a nuke into it, and also pretty pointless since the gold would still be recoverable.

I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if there's no gold in Fort Knox and the government never had any gold there, the gold was in a secret facility and Fort Knox is used for something entirely different. Given the strict no visitor policy, anything could be going on there.
 
Okay. But the big C&H pattern which broke above its handle last year, has a target of around $3100.

Just checked back and it was around 20 Feb 2022 we were discussing $2700 ish a bit. So, three years ago. Waited a long time for the handle to break up.

I can see how it could be extended a bit, but it's all just approximate targets I guess.

Looking back it was a good time to be accumulating gold.

Screenshot 2025-02-21 at 14.09.08.png
 
Just checked back and it was around 20 Feb 2022 we were discussing $2700 ish a bit. So, three years ago. Waited a long time for the handle to break up.

I can see how it could be extended a bit, but it's all just approximate targets I guess.

Looking back it was a good time to be accumulating gold.

View attachment 193741

The standard way to calculate the price target for a cup and handle is to take the difference between the bottom of the cup ($1046.54) and the right edge of the cup ($2075.13) and add that to the right edge of the cup, so, about $1029 + $2075 = $3104.

Of course the outcome and prediction is not exact, but the calculation is, and it's about $3,100 not $2,700.

You've used a less standard method to come up with your calculation. Of course, you could argue that your method or any other is more valid or useful for your own purposes and strategies, and you might be right, and of course the market could potentially do anything, but the price calculated using the standard textbook method could potentially have some relevance to the market, given that we've already well exceeded $2700 anyway and are approaching the standard target. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see $3,000 become a more relevant figure, being so big and round, and once that's broken we may fly straight past $3,100 for multiple reasons; it may not even pose anything of resistance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if hitting $3000 or just close to it is an immediate catalyst for a huge rally well above $3100. I'm just throwing the textbook figure out there for discussion.
 
Friday, February 21, 2025
ADKq_NaMAFJ4srPSCIHdN5gupiIHj2v8A0LjIVk28gGN0yMkqpz5txPiz3zqmPcJEfDS2MJb1y2wNvmwgbLercT1KJN7TeOfcokPJdz4Sv-QUBwa9tG-bkSq1ZaZI7qJxLCChNmZz5nqPFT7q3_5t3sJQgOxM8roVsqD2wgsJgPzadT6WJqdIKY6neTirP6wIIpr90wTWlGwsiypVg=s0-d-e1-ft
Junior Gold Miners Are Breaking Out — Are You In?
In true commodity supercycles, shiny yellow rocks outperform stocks. It’s just what they do.

We’ve been pounding the table on precious metal mining stocks, and now they’re testing a key level of polarity relative to gold futures. This is where miners start to outperform gold. And just as the technicals line up, we’re heading into their seasonal sweet spot.

Historically, GDXJ performs best in the first half of the year — April and Julyare prime breakout months, while August and September tend to be the worst.

February? Not great historically. But this year? Different story.

Here’s the Seasonal Setup 72.png
_junior%20gold%20miners_01JMJP4M1YJNBA1GFBH6GSRNNG.png
Click the chart to enlarge it.
Junior gold miners are already up nearly 5% this month, following a 13% rally in January. Momentum is surging into these stocks.

The top holdings in GDXJ include Alamos Gold, Harmony Gold, Pan American, Evolution Mining, and B2Gold.

There are real winners in this space.

For over a decade, sellers capped rallies at $50 — clean resistance. In 2020, bulls broke out to seven year highs, but bears shut it down. It looked like a failed breakout, but it wasn’t. The bulls made a higher low, and now we’re back at the crime scene.

Now, check out the chart:
8959898_junior%20miners_01JMJP4S5PVNC83C9Q3G46DWW2.png
These are the outliers we hunt.

Breaking out of a clear resistance zone is exactly what we want to see to stay bullish on the junior gold miners.


I'm not in the camp 'miners' outperform the physical.

This is not your normal cycle. Gold is rising against higher USD and higher 10yr UST. That is very different.


Gold backed ETFs:


Let me be crystal clear and upfront—gold ETFs do not lend their gold.

This includes SPDR Gold Trust (GLD), iShares Gold Trust (IAU), SPDR Gold Mini Shares Trust (GLDM)1 and all the additional US listed gold ETFs.2

Simply put, it is not permitted by the product design, nor is it permitted under the regulatory approval granted to each product. Yet, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cringed hearing a market professional mischaracterize the market by saying that they borrow gold from gold ETFs or that a gold ETF lends its gold. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why US-listed Physically-backed Gold ETFs Cannot Lend Gold​

Gold ETFs hold only one asset: gold. There are three key distinctions that provide assurance the underlying assets are never lent:
  • No regulatory approval has been provided to lend any of the underlying assets held by the fund/trust.
  • No economic benefits from activities related to securities lending are received by the fund/trust.
  • No risk factors are cited related to securities lending as it is not a feature embedded in the structure.
Additionally, if an ETF engages in securities lending, there are required disclosures informing investors that the fund may lend the underlying assets and of the associated risks.3 By contrast, US-listed physically-backed gold ETFs have no such disclosures, and the publicly filed agreements governing the trusts do not allow for securities lending by the trusts.4

What Happens Instead: Borrowing and Lending ETF Shares​

Now that we are clear that US-listed physically-backed gold ETFs do not lend any gold, let's discuss what is possible once a gold ETF becomes established, liquid and mainstream.

As a gold ETF becomes well-adopted into the market, it often becomes a key component of the capital markets ecosystem around the asset it represents. This is the case with GLD and IAU, for example, which have significant levels of AUM, high volumes on the US equity exchanges, and are regularly available for borrowing and lending in the securities finance markets.

Here’s how it works: Traders and speculators often borrow shares of such a gold ETF through standard securities lending relationships, which involve the gold ETF’s shareholders, and do not involve the London gold lease market, or the trust, itself.

Those looking to access bullion short will use the securities finance market to borrow shares of the gold ETF. These shares are lent by the shareholder, not by the trust. For the borrower to access a short gold position, they need to either short that gold ETF (which carries risk) or redeem the shares for physical gold, which can then be sold in the London market.

Importantly, these transactions are conducted between owners of the gold ETF, the custody bank that maintains a “lending program” for the client who owns the gold ETF and those who are borrowing the shares.

The following are also true:
  • All fees, income and risks associated with that transaction are separate and distinct from the activities of the fund or trust;
  • The transaction has no bearing on the gold ETF’s ability to perform its role as an appropriate access mechanism to a unit trust that provides the price performance of gold with little or no variance from the reference price (in this case the LBMA Gold Price PM);
  • No economics are received by the gold ETF; and
  • No risk of recall, no risk of market dislocation and no risk of credit default are taken by the gold ETF.
When it is time for this independent lending transaction to close out, the borrower of the gold ETF will either buy shares in the secondary market to cover their borrow or unwind by purchasing gold in the OTC market. Once the gold is purchased, using the proper channels, they will submit that gold to create gold ETF shares and use those new shares to close out the borrow.

Either way, the borrowing and unwinding of the trade will result in a healthy level of activity in both the primary market (OTC London bullion market) and the secondary market (listed exchange volume in the US), which will match buyers and sellers. Any imbalance again gets handled by creation or redemption with approved authorized participants.


Market Benefits of Physically-backed Gold ETFs​

This type of activity illustrates how gold ETFs add liquidity to the overall gold market ecosystem. Increased trading volumes and the participation of more market participants lead to tighter bid-offer spreads, reducing costs for investors and improving market efficiency. Additionally, these ETFs make gold a more mainstream investment instrument by eliminating the challenges of trading physical gold, such as storage, transfer, or questions about gold type or authenticity.

Conclusion​

To summarize: US-listed physically-backed gold ETFs, including GLD and IAU, do not lend their gold. However, their role in the secondary market indirectly contributes to the overall liquidity and sophistication of the gold market, making gold a more accessible and appealing investment option.



jog on
duc
 

Conclusion​

To summarize: US-listed physically-backed gold ETFs, including GLD and IAU, do not lend their gold. However, their role in the secondary market indirectly contributes to the overall liquidity and sophistication of the gold market, making gold a more accessible and appealing investment option.
I wonder if Australian-listed Gold ETF's are similarly constrained from lending their Gold.

gg
 
Junior gold miners are already up nearly 5% this month, following a 13% rally in January. Momentum is surging into these stocks
my selection in the monthly comp. is contesting that statement

and not only is it a gold producer but a profitable one

post on 20th of January

Regis Resources (ASX: RRL)​

Morgan Stanley:

  • Production / Profitability: Expects gold production 101.3koz (+7% qoq) to beat consensus by 9%, AISC A$2,535/oz (+3% qoq) to be in line with consensus
  • Rating and TP: EQUAL-WEIGHT | $2.65
RBC Capital Markets:substantial A$149m cash generation

  • Production / Profitability: Expects gold production of 101kt (+7% qoq) to beat consensus by 7%, AISC A$2,414/oz (-3 qoq) to beat consensus by 5%
  • Pressure points: A march quarter “lull” could potentially occur, but company is on track for “mid-FY25 gold and cost guidance, with a ~20% FY25-27e FCF yield”
  • Rating & TP: OUTPERFORM | $4.00
 
Screenshot 2025-02-23 at 7.32.20 AM.pngScreenshot 2025-02-23 at 7.32.41 AM.png

I don’t think Trump likes to fail at pretty much anything, and neither does Elon. I’m going with firsthand knowledge here – they have been flying gold into the US, out of Europe, and mainly London, I know this for a fact, on almost every flight, since before Christmas. `

Typically on a passenger flight, they’ll spread the gold out, roughly 4 tonnes of gold, across the cargo hold. If the plane is full, as most of it was leading up to Christmas due to holiday travel, they can only get 2 tonnes into the cargo hold.

So if almost every single flight has that much gold coming in, and I know this firsthand from all the armed carriers, guys I work with these companies, I know them, in fact one of them is going to be leasing space from me in my new facility in Wyoming. So this amount of gold has been coming here.

A lot of us started noticing the Exchange for Physical premium that the banks were allowing to bring the gold to the US, most of us originally thought that was only for tariff reasons. While that is correct, since the beginning of February, we have been saying since the beginning of February, this is repatriation.

They are bringing that gold here for someone. Is that the US government? It wouldn’t surprise me, when Trump was talking about “a new Golden Era”, and “monetizing the asset side of the US balance sheet” in the last couple weeks.


Source: Scottsdale Mint CEO Josh Philip Phair, on X, 2/16/25 (5) Josh Philip Phair on X: "Elon Musk to audit the US Gold Stockpiles! ... Part 2. What will DOGE Unveil? https://t.co/7rDwjSiSXH" / X


jog on
duc
 
Ft Knox and other locations gold:


ADKq_NaksDG5kjMh9FP0ej_iNaCZG8wcI2REkQEVsivH7vwMVrNJRV5td28kS7iDNGm3JM-k0F_YYMLgG8rJkYpIvhX02WgGEepNUgAPROGkiyTk1fK32dFChC8zbNnFSLMxtHcgDJuFzvIOgn7HTeW1XswoWJA55e9aGH-GLZHlHmTKg_cZx4EjG1Yd1Sw0wPdmnH72WCB5bN7H04JXggl-Ja9lN44Gvx3dse3xOu2UanWwpng316tUgtERbPNOrLwW3al_n3dQQU8sxla9qicL0u5NiyFw3qgyEBV7lR-FiOc6AXd_bnpv3fpRRibOLut3irrblP-jVgCVLgAY85JZOmM7sioW2KPjXV-nxl-xTb7Lq2YUm_me6ZrF4-Zb-zT7jdc0bNXXLC_cqL9rIVSda4z8_GnQflu01xXm6PrWoEsVkvkKinDz3M0GGVgqdyBXHhVfRSoinfAWBqhwRGhP1iHhNK0_7VOr4QXfkZk55uMkVGTuOy3feb8VNp7yPUQCturYHfNE-F8ondHQO9xghR4YQ4QmmRCI8G54CVkjrtmyEkfEFZY_ZXUA08uD8-TwM-yzUhHb1aDEtrC2JNa2piO2Zjy6Gl2-AqA-zOs5vY7atAJ-WhbPQ_FbJWfqecv8WQ=s0-d-e1-ft

Recently you have expressed an intention to do an audit of the gold at Fort Knox and presumably also the other vaults where the U.S. monetary gold is stored.

If you proceed with this endeavor, you will be misleadingly told by the U.S. Treasury, the owner of the gold, that the metal is annually audited by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) together with an independent public accountant, KPMG LLP.

The 2024 audit report of the “United States Mint’s Schedules of Custodial Deep Storage Gold and Silver Reserves” stored at the U.S. Mint, including the depositories at Fort Knox, West Point, and Denver, can be found on the OIG website here. The report on the gold stored at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) is here. No need for any new audits, the bureaucrats will say.

But don’t be fooled. While it's true that currently the OIG inspects the permanent tamper-evident seals covering vault compartments annually, and KPMG has accompanied the OIG during these expeditions, these audits are anything but credible if you would know what happened to those compartments before the last seals were put on.

I have been researching the U.S. gold reserves audits for many years, all the way back to 1974, and submitted countless FOIA requests at the Treasury (owner), Mint (custodian), FRBNY (custodian), and OIG (auditor) that unearthed previously undisclosed documents. In total, I have published nine articles about my findings1.

The full list of anomalies and problems regarding the audits would be too lengthy to discuss here, but below are a few unsettling conclusions:
  • Repeatedly auditing staff deviated from the prescribed auditing protocol, while the internal controls designed to prevent such deviations were failing.
  • Numerous audit and assay reports have been lost or destroyed.
  • For decades, a significant portion of the metal was excluded from verifications without any apparent reason.
  • The U.S. government went to great lengths to withhold information about the audits.
  • The permanent tamper-evident seals, placed on vault compartments after they were audited, meant never to be broken again, have repeatedly been broken. The OIG has carefully avoided this subject when it testified under oath, and on another occasion lied about it.

Given the significance of this subject, I would like to expand on the most sensitive issue at hand: the frequent re-opening of vault compartments placed under Official Joint Seal. As such breaches mean there can be no assurance the vault compartments still contain the gold they should.​

An Introduction


You will know that (on paper) the U.S. holds the largest official gold reserves in the world, accounting for 8,134 metric tonnes. While this gold no longer backs the U.S. dollar at a fixed parity as it did before 1971, it serves as essential support and a final backstop to the dollar, contributing credibility to the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency.

The majority of the gold is stored at a U.S. Mint depository at Fort Knox, while smaller quantities are kept at Mint depositories in Denver and West Point. Collectively, this volume is known as Deep Storage gold and is secured within 42 sealed compartments. The remainder is stored at the FRBNY.
ges%2F3f75cc8c-ee0c-4214-97f2-affc3cd9150f_810x232.jpg
Source: U.S. Treasury. Next to the Deep Storage of gold at the Mint and metal at the FRBNY, there are 87 tonnes stored at the Mint that can be utilized as working stock for producing coins.

The current audits commenced in 1974 and were designed to annually verify 10% of the gold, place verified compartments under “Official Joint Seal,” and after all compartments were attested in 1983 inspect the seals every year (page 36, page 534). But unfortunately, this is not what unfolded.

ges%2Fa0dfe86f-2afb-44b9-8ef7-ee5e12420d42_810x646.jpg
Sealed vault compartment at Fort Knox.

How the Audit Procedures Have Failed


Representing the OIG, Eric M. Thorson attended the congressional hearing for the Gold Transparency Act of 2011 that was initiated by Ron Paul (not enacted). Mr. Thorson’s testimony at the hearing serves as the official statement by the auditor. Having weighed his words carefully, Thorson stated:​
… 100 percent of the U.S. Government’s gold reserves in the custody of the Mint has been inventoried and audited.
… the Committee for Continuing Audit of the U.S. Government-owned Gold [The Committee that started the audits] performed annual audits of Treasury’s gold reserves from 1974 to 1986.

… by 1986, 97 percent of the Government-owned gold held by the Mint had been audited and placed under joint seal. So once you have done that, and that seal remains unbroken, then I am not sure what other benefit there would be to going back into it at that point.

Since 1993, when we [OIG] assumed responsibility for the audit, my office has continued to directly observe the inventory and test the gold. In fact, my auditors signed the official joint seals … placed on those compartments.
At the end of Fiscal Year of 2008, all 42 compartments had been audited by … the Committee for Continuing Audit of the U.S. Government-owned Gold, or my office, and placed under official joint seals.

In summary:​
  • From 1974 until 1986, 97 percent of the Deep Storage gold had been verified by the so-called Committee for Continuing Audit.
  • In 1993 the OIG became responsible for the audits, and by 2008 all compartments had been verified and sealed.

Two assumptions we can derive from Thorson’s testimony:​
  • From 1987 until 1992, there were no audits.
  • From 1993 until 2008, the remaining 3 percent of the gold was verified.

Thorson didn’t mention anything about vault compartments having ever been re-opened.
To refute Thorson’s testimony, it’s paramount to first establish the OIG did not assume responsibility for the audits since 1993, but as early as 1982. From one of the few documents that survived the 1980s (page 2):​
Effective October 1, 1982, the Internal Audit Staffs of BGFO and the United States Mint [Committee for Continuing Audit] were reorganized under the Department of the Treasury, Office of the Inspector General [OIG].

On the front page of an audit report from 1985, we can clearly see the OIG’s name:​
ges%2Fe9e90a35-481f-421f-9383-f49d566e792e_810x349.jpg
Second, ever since the OIG became part of the audits in 1982, exactly what was not supposed to happen, did happen: vault compartments that had been physically verified and sealed were re-opened.
Read with me, from the 1986 audit report with respect to Fort Knox (Pages 7 and 8):
ges%2F7fbb0030-10e9-4b96-ab9b-e209d58f404f_810x282.jpg
For dubious reasons, from 1983 until 1986 ‘re-audits’ of 1,929 tonnes were performed at Fort Knox and Denver (sealed compartments were re-opened while both depositories were fully audited by then) “in accordance with the plan approved by the Treasurer.” Meanwhile, Deep Storage compartments at West Point had never been audited.

Why didn’t the OIG finish the audits at West Point, as intended, but instead began breaking permanent seals at Fort Knox and Denver? Thorson himself said in 2011 that “once you have done that [placing seals] and that seal remains unbroken, then I am not sure what other benefit there would be to going back into it.”

One more time, to be sure, the purpose of the seals, as we can also read from the Mint’s annual report 1974/1975 (page 36), was that when compartments had been verified and sealed, “these actions having once been performed … will not have to be repeated as long as the assets verified remain under an unimpaired joint seal.”

More Lies by The Auditor


What Thorson meticulously avoided discussing under oath, he included in a written statement for the Gold Transparency Act of 2011 (page 45):​
From 1986 to 1992, the Mint continued to perform an annual inventory and verification of the gold reserves in accordance with its own policies over those compartments that had not been placed under Official Joint Seal…

So, the U.S. Mint audited its custodial gold “in accordance with its own policies” from 1987 through 1992, though the OIG was already in charge at the time. This is like a bank opening its customers’ safety deposit boxes while the auditor decided to take a sabbatical.

Also, note that Thorson states that the Mint exclusively opened “those compartments that had not been placed under Official Joint Seal.” This is a lie and I can prove it to you.

Through FOIAs, I obtained copies of seals that were placed by the Mint on 5 Deep Storage compartments between 1987 and 1992. Thorson is wrong because all these seals were placed at Fort Knox and Denver, which were verified and sealed by late 1982.

Please have a look at one of the seal copies:​
es%2F5c977ce5-0e2c-4b34-9f8d-535aaa1506b8_810x1004.jpg
At the top you can see the “date sealed”, “July 25, 1990,” and the depository is “Fort Knox, Kentucky,” which was fully audited by 1982 (and some compartments re-audited from 1983 through 1986).

You can also see on the seal when this compartment was “sealed previously.” It was in 1976 (underlined in red), confirming it was a re-audit. There is no possibility that this compartment was audited for the first time in 1990, as suggested by Thorson.

Last but not least, at the very bottom, you can see a date, “February 16, 1993,” which is when this seal was removed by the OIG (presumably for yet another ‘re-audit’). More evidence that the OIG must have known what happened to these compartments between 1987 and 1992. Removing the seal in 1993 by the OIG (after their sabbatical) clearly would have told the history of this compartment.

You will also notice the OIG left a trail so complicated, whereas the audit setup in 1974 seemed so simple. Why?

Conclusion


Physical gold audits are supposed to remove any doubt about the presence of gold at a specific custodian. But when we look beneath the surface of the audits discussed above, we have to conclude they actually raise more doubt than reassurance about the safety of the U.S. official gold reserves.

Sadly, Mr. President, the above-noted problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Why were the physical inventories not completed in 1983? Why did the OIG re-open compartments between 1983 and 1986? Why again between 1987 and 1992? Why was the gold at the FRBNY never audited in 2011? The list is endless and it would take a book to adequately discuss all problems related to the audits.

A new, credible audit could verify that all U.S. Treasury gold is physically accounted for. But the process should not stop there. Another question to be examined and reported about is whether any encumbrances have been placed upon the gold, via swaps, leases, pledges, or any other form of rehypothecation.

Hopefully, this letter contains useful information for you, and your administration will conceive of and execute a new full audit of all the U.S. monetary gold. Then we can all finally put this topic to rest. A template for this was created by Congressman Alex Mooney’s Gold Reserves Transparency Act last introduced in 2021 with the help of the Sound Money Defense League.

For more information please refer to my prior articles that can be found in the notes1.​

Notes


  1. In my last article on this subject, “U.S. Official Gold Reserves Auditor Caught Lying,” the links to all my articles spread over several websites are disclosed. For anyone who wants to get a full picture of all issues with the audits make sure to read my last and second to last article: “Audits of U.S. Monetary Gold Severely Lack Credibility.”
  2. The original documents state “1975” but for the sake of simplicity I have changed it to “1974”. Officially, the Committee for Continuing Audit of the U.S. Government-owned Gold started in 1975, but because they accepted the audit performed in 1974 in their program effectively their program started in 1974.


jog on
duc
 

Attachments

  • https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    1.2 KB · Views: 2
  • https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 3
  • https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    524 bytes · Views: 1
  • https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.png
    973 bytes · Views: 2
  • es%2F20c909b5-0a29-407e-b06a-fadc08f4f059_2556x560.png
    es%2F20c909b5-0a29-407e-b06a-fadc08f4f059_2556x560.png
    45.2 KB · Views: 2
The sooner the audit of Fort Knox is complete the better. There has been a failure of governance in the accountability of the US Treasury over its gold holdings. More importantly a process for continual mini audits and regular full audits needs to be in place to return confidence to the market.

The Australian government also needs to be transparent in the stores of gold here. Mints need to be rigorously audited on a regular basis to continue to have our gold held to a sufficient standard to provide assurance to the investing public of the safety of their gold investments.

gg
 
The sooner the audit of Fort Knox is complete the better. There has been a failure of governance in the accountability of the US Treasury over its gold holdings. More importantly a process for continual mini audits and regular full audits needs to be in place to return confidence to the market.

The Australian government also needs to be transparent in the stores of gold here. Mints need to be rigorously audited on a regular basis to continue to have our gold held to a sufficient standard to provide assurance to the investing public of the safety of their gold investments.

gg

I've heard from a friend of an Uber driver that the reason they don't let anyone in is they don't want anyone to see the plans, layout, security set up, etc. If they let anyone in they have to kill them, or something like that.

I was expecting a slightly bigger jump out of this little box, but it's looking healthy.

Screenshot 2025-02-25 at 10.08.19.png
 
I've heard from a friend of an Uber driver that the reason they don't let anyone in is they don't want anyone to see the plans, layout, security set up, etc. If they let anyone in they have to kill them, or something like that.
yeah , lots of criminals have that protocol

one MIGHT think having an entire military base ( it is called FORT WORTH ) on top of the vaults , might deter most external theft attempts , that only leaves insiders to police properly

OR the corruption is so bad , it starts at the 'mickey mouse ' security equipment

because one thing I would do , is secure the forklifts/internal transport between every authorized use
 
The sooner the audit of Fort Knox is complete the better. There has been a failure of governance in the accountability of the US Treasury over its gold holdings. More importantly a process for continual mini audits and regular full audits needs to be in place to return confidence to the market.

The Australian government also needs to be transparent in the stores of gold here. Mints need to be rigorously audited on a regular basis to continue to have our gold held to a sufficient standard to provide assurance to the investing public of the safety of their gold investments.

gg

Having an audit done is only going to restore confidence to the market if the gold is actually all there. I give it a greater than 50% chance that it's not, and that becoming public knowledge would be catastrophic for the markets.

It really says a lot about this world when an underground vault containing Shrodinger's gold which either way will not be used for anything other than sitting there doing nothing, will cause such such a dramatic outcome if it is observed.

It is what it is, but the audits not happening for so long make me think the gold is gone. No one is ever going to steal it with a direct guns blazing robbery so stories like 'thieves may learn the layout if someone goes in to audit' are very silly excuses. Does anyone genuinely not see that a very, very lengthy period of 'That extraordinarily valuable stuff I'm guarding is totally still there, but I won't allow you to check, just believe me' is reason to think it's likely not there?
 
Top