-- Published: Thursday, 17 December 2015 | Print | Disqus
Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:
Financial letter writer Avi Gilburt today offers a rebuttal to your secretary/treasurer's response Tuesday (http://www.gata.org/node/16034) to his charge Monday (http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2015-12-14/Confessions-of-a-Gold-Analy...) that GATA has taken out of context its documentation of largely surreptitious intervention in the gold market by central banks.
Rather than defend his charge by reviewing any of the supposedly misconstrued documents, which would require a little effort, Gilburt changes the subject and himself misconstrues GATA in several respects:
-- Gilburt criticizes GATA for not being an investment adviser when your secretary/treasurer, rebutting him, proclaimed that GATA is not an investment adviser but an organization advocating free, transparent, and fair markets.
-- Gilburt says GATA is mistaken to assert that fundamentals should control markets. But GATA has not asserted that. While fundamentals often do control markets, as when a commodity is exhausted and higher prices are necessary to spur supply, of course there may be other factors. GATA strives to identify another factor in the gold market, intervention by central banks.
-- Gilburt charges that GATA maintains that there is no manipulation of the gold market when gold prices are rising. This charge discloses that Gilburt really pays no attention at all to what GATA says. As recently as Monday your secretary/treasurer again called attention to a study speculating that central banks mean to push the gold price way up eventually to help monetize assets and devalue debt:
-- Gilburt writes that GATA "lacks any real perspective of how financial markets work," and yet he never mentions central banks, as if central bank policy lately has not been widely acknowledged to determine most market action, if not gold market action.
-- Gilburt's conclusion is that "investor sentiment is the main controlling factor" in markets. GATA can agree with that assertion if central banks are included among "investors." But Gilburt does not include them.
Gilburt's basic position seems to echo the position expressed by market analyst Doug Casey at last year's New Orleans Investment Conference: that central banks are irrelevant to markets and so what they do doesn't matter, though they create infinite money and throw much of it around in secret. But Gilburt seems most interested in touting the profitability of the technical analysis of markets provided by his financial letter. If he can make money, either by trading or selling his letter, Gilburt apparently couldn't care less whether markets are free, transparent, and fair. That's his right but he has run away from his original criticism of GATA: that GATA has misconstrued the documentation of central bank intervention in the gold market.
Gilburt's rebuttal is headlined "Avi Gilburt's Response to GATA" and it's posted at GoldSeek here:
CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
* * *
Support GATA by purchasing recordings of the proceedings of the 2014 New Orleans Investment Conference:
Or by purchasing DVDs of GATA's London conference in August 2011 or GATA's Dawson City conference in August 2006:
Or by purchasing a colorful GATA T-shirt:
Or a colorful poster of GATA's full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2009:
Help keep GATA going
GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at:
To contribute to GATA, please visit:
| Digg This Article
-- Published: Thursday, 17 December 2015 | E-Mail | Print | Source: GoldSeek.com