18 July 1997
The Australian Gold Sales and the Aftermath
by Robert Pringle, Head, Public Policy Centre,
World Gold Council
The
Australian government appears to have been caught off balance by the fall
in the gold price following the announcement on July 3rd that the countrys
central bank has sold 167 tonnes of gold, two-thirds of the official holdings.
Mr John Howard, the Prime Minister, has defended the decision on the grounds
that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) was not acting any differently
to central banks around the world.
However, the market reaction to the announcement has been much sharper
than that following previous announcements by other central banks. In
the week after the Australian announcement, the price fell by US$13 (from
US$332 to US$319 six days later), whereas the maximum price change following
previous announcements was US$10 and the average only US$4.
The crucial reason for this is that the Australian sale is widely seen
as different, not because it is a producer but because of the reasons
it has sold - with the aim of improving the return on its international
reserves. All previous central bank sales or proposed large-scale gold
mobilisations were motivated at least in part by special factors. Thus
EU central banks like the Netherlands and Belgium were perceived to be
motivated by a desire to qualify for European Monetary Union (EMU).
Australia is seen as the first country to sell primarily for portfolio
reasons. Thus the Australian action is viewed in the market as widening
the ranks of potential central bank sellers.
The RBA seems to have seriously underestimated the likely strength of
this negative reaction. The Australian economy - and the world gold mining
industry - now have to cope with the consequences. Any broad economic
assessment of the costs and benefits of the move is likely to show the
results to be overwhelmingly negative. The RBA will gain an estimated
A$100 million a year in interest earnings. Yet the fall in the price in
the week after the announcement reduced the value of Australias
gold reserves in the ground by an estimated US $1 billion,
and gold resources (not yet proven) by a further US $2 billion. Also,
part of these resources and of current mining operations has been rendered
uneconomic, jeopardising some of the 25,000 jobs in the sector, as well
as employment in companies supplying services to the sector. Business
confidence has been shaken.
The Australians maintain that they are in line with other central banks,
whereas in fact they are way out of line. Contrary to information being
reported in the Australian media, very few central banks have sold on
any significant scale (Canadas extended sales programme is in a
different category, since this has been spread over many years). According
to the IMF, total official holdings have been reduced by 3,000 tonnes,
or less than 10%, over the past 30 years. As of March 1997, official holdings
still amounted to 34,096 tonnes. Despite all the media hype, the overall
picture is one of massive stability.
Several other central banks have on the contrary been acquiring gold.
These include China and Russia. Last year, it is estimated by Gold Fields
Mineral Services that 19 countries acquired gold, against 16 that were
net sellers. Again, Australia is out of line.
Moreover, leading central bankers - including even the Australians-accept
the arguments for gold. So, why have the Australians sold? They say they
can always acquire gold from domestic producers if needed, in an emergency.
This view ignores several key facts. First, gold in the ground takes
a long time to produce and refine - and in an emergency, time is of the
essence. Second, it is in the hands of the private sector, and would doubtless
command a very high price in the circumstances in which it would be needed.
Moreover, even if the RBAs arguments were accepted, that does not
justify doing harm to the reputation of an important international asset
which is held by all leading central banks.
Central banks are supposed to safeguard future generations from unknown
and unpredictable contingencies. Gold is generally viewed by central banks
as a good asset against such long-term dangers.
The RBA has stressed that its current holdings of 80 tonnes is
consistent with Australias longer-term requirements and there
will be no further sales. It is not walking away from gold. That is small
comfort to an industry which has received a shock from such an unexpected
quarter - a shock which is likely to do lasting damage to the world gold
industry.
Contact: R. Pringle, Head, Centre for Public Policy
, World Gold Council, Kings House, 10 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4BP, U.K.
Tel. +44.171.930 5171, Fax. +44.171.839.4314, or by e-mail: info@gold.org. |