暢銷書籍《貨幣戰爭》（Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis）的作者Jim Rickards是一名律師、投資銀行家兼風險經理人，他在華爾街工作逾30年，他近日接受媒體採訪時稱，上海正在取代倫敦成為世界黃金交易中心，中國持續大量的購買黃金是為了抵禦美元貶值；人民幣雖然可以成為貿易貨幣但離儲備貨幣還有很長的距離，中國眼下追求的是IMF特別提款權以代替美元作為儲備。
對於中國市場傳言中國在暗中儲備黃金一事，Rickards稱：我與全球最大黃金精煉廠的貴金屬業務負責人會過面。他近來擴充了工廠產能，並在廠區開闢了一處全新的區域，展開高度自動化的黃金生產作業。此外，他還安排工人三班上工，工廠每天24小時加班工作。
他們每週製造20噸的黃金，其中一半產量運送至中國。換言之，一星期10噸，一年共約有500噸。然而，這只是一間黃金精煉廠的產能，尚未涵蓋其他的工廠，全部加總起來的黃金，總數量極為可觀。工廠負責人說： “我盡全力生產黃金，工廠每天24小時運作，並運送所有的黃金至中國，一年共500噸，但這仍難以填補中國客戶的胃口。”
他還說，中國客戶還想要更多的黃金，因為還有其他固定客戶，無法滿足他們的需要。這間工廠有勞力士手錶和其他高資產人士及機構等長期客戶，他無法斷然拒絕老客戶的訂單。
Rickards認為為何會有這麼多黃金的來源主要是由金礦開採、舊金回收和400盎司重的金條。中國當局基本上並不理會倫敦黃金市場的標準，而是重新設立了新的精煉規格。現在倫敦金的標準是400盎司重，純度為99%，而中國新的規格為1公斤重，純度為99.99%的金條。
因此，黃金精煉工廠把400盎司重且純度為99%的金條，精煉成1公斤重且純度是99.99%，這是中國客戶的唯一要求。
此外，Rickards認為上海黃金交易所正逐漸取代倫敦，將成為世界黃金交易的中心，因為目前，國際貨幣體系立基於脆弱的紙貨幣，易於崩潰，一旦這個系統需要進一步改革，手中黃金最多的人自然可取得決定權。
但即使中國當局瘋狂買黃金，以黃金作為貨幣發行準備的比例目前仍較美國為低。Rickards認為中國當局已暗中收購3000或4000噸的黃金，而且會持續買進黃金。
不過Rickards不認為中國具有供應全球儲備貨幣的能力，比如中國不願開放資本賬戶（capital account）就是一大阻礙，雖然人民幣作為貿易貨幣（trade currency）的用途日漸擴增，但貿易貨幣和儲備貨幣兩者之間的差異還是很大的。
舉巴西和中國為例，巴西同意以人民幣交易巴西貨物，而中國願意收取里拉，賣出商品給巴西，這是不錯的交易機制。雙方只是記錄交易，並逐漸付清貨款，這就是貿易貨幣。
但要成為儲備貨幣，意味著這些國家的儲備貨幣須有投資的對象，因此，要有龐大可投資的資產管道。中國尚未具備這個條件。中國祇有幾個點心債券（Dim-Sum bond）和其他少數的金融商品，依舊沒有政府債券發行，而政府債券市場需要10至15年來逐步發展。
但發行政府債券的條件不僅如此。中國沒有法治基礎，那麼客戶很難產生對中國當局的信心。所以，綜合這些因素判斷，他們還未達到儲備貨幣的條件。
Rickards認為，其實中國眼下更想要的是特別提款權（Special Drawing Right, SDR）, SDR是各國政府發生國際收支逆差時，可藉此向國際貨幣組織（IMF）指定其它會員國換取外匯，償付國際收支逆差或償還IMF貸款，還可與黃金、自由兌換貨幣般充作國際儲備。SDR由IMF發行，不是美元，中國正著手游說IMF更多成員國的支持。
中國試圖借錢給IMF，購買SDR，IMF便有資金援助歐洲。同時，他們也運用SDR作為槓桿效用，獲得更多國家支持。由於SDR操作是由會員國進行監管，取得較多選票，中國就可安穩地利用SDR當作儲備貨幣，使中國繼美國之後，成為IMF的第二大成員國。
然而，美國反對這項作法，但IMF總裁拉加德（Christine Lagarde）卻大力提升中國的角色。這是全球性複雜遊戲的角力。
Rickards稱：大多數人會認為他們是將人民幣推至儲備貨幣的地位。實則不然，他們要推動的是SDR。
關於那美國將採取何種動作，償還中國購買的美國國債，Rickards稱：美國要做的就是讓貨幣貶值，能用便宜的美元償還國債。
這背後的實質意義是，中國的財富將轉移給美國，中國將完全處於劣勢，而這正是中國當局購買黃金主因，藉以抵銷美元貶值的損失。如此一來，美元開始貶值，黃金的價格便會上揚，雖然帳面上中國蒙受損失，卻可在黃金取得補償。
2013年1月16日德國央行(Bundesbank)稱最早2020年前從法蘭西銀行(Banque de France)和美聯儲 (Fed)分別拿回存儲的374噸和300噸黃金。一年之後，德國央行卻僅僅拿回了37噸黃金，而其中僅有5噸是來自美聯儲的。要知道，美聯儲存儲著德國3396噸黃金的45%。
這顯然引起了很多猜測，很多人認為美聯儲將德國的黃金融解出租甚至出售掉了。而在此前，有消息稱德國央行之所以要拿回那些黃金，就是因為美聯儲不讓德國央行檢查那些被存儲著的黃金。
近日，德國央行董事會成員Carl-Ludwig Thiele接受采訪，談及了德國這些黃金的問題。
在談到德國沒有權限檢查存在美聯儲的黃金，以及美聯儲已將那些黃金做它用的傳聞時，Thiele稱在2002年6月，他本人就在紐約，並且查看了他們的黃金是怎麼被存儲的。“ 美國人從沒有阻礙我們，相反，他們非常合作。我們的內部審計團隊在去年移動黃金的時候就在現場。融解的過程也被獨立專家監管。”
此外Thiele還稱從美聯儲金庫被帶走的黃金在被運到歐洲後才會被融解，做成符合目前標準的金條。“我們存在美聯儲的一些黃金是在二戰前製造的，在檢查後，這些金條是完全好的。”
Thiele說：“在運輸前，我們原本的那些金條在紐約被交到我們手上，我們的內部審計團隊檢查了數目。然後這些金條就被運到歐洲，被融解。所以那些陰謀論都完全沒根據的。”
德國的黃金還有存在英國央行 (BOE)的，13%被存在倫敦，還有11%被存在法蘭西銀行，其餘的則都存在德國央行在法蘭克福的總部。
在被問道黃金是否被用在貨幣政策上時，Thiele說：“這是一個非常理論上的狀況，會牽涉進很極端的外匯市場紊亂。德國通過儲備資產保障其償付能力。除了外匯儲備，我們的儲備資產包括黃金。黃金能被抵押或者直接換取外國貨幣。這也是為什麼我們把一半黃金留著紐約和倫敦的原因。”
在被問到讓美國人存儲黃金的原因時，Thiele說：“這要從歷史角度看。黃金儲備是在布雷頓森林體系的時候出現的。當時在東方有威脅，因此看起來要把德國的黃金存的越遠越好，因此被存到了紐約。”
這幾天談金，然在金的背後還有息口，除非是在危機期，不然息跌金升是必然事，然有分析謂金、息或會齊升。
美聯儲（FED）決定縮減QE後，很多機構和分析師預期美國國債價和黃金價將下跌。
美債息再升 金價隨勢上漲
但是，勞埃德商業銀行（Lloyds Bank Commercial Banking）技術分析師Tim McCullough持不同觀點，他認為國債和黃金都將上漲。McCullough用DeMark指標（Thomas DeMark）創造的一個複雜的把握市場時機的工具，他是DeMark Analytics公司的創始人和CEO，分析得出黃金將會漲得更高。他表示，「黃金將再次測試1,921美元高點，至少會觸及1,700美元區域」
McCollough還預計。10年期國債收益率可能升至3.28％。之後將反轉走低。法國興業銀行則認為，10年期美國債息率到2017年將升至5％。如果你對金的升跌無甚動容時，息的升破定會觸動你的神經，對於這樣的一個重要資訊，你想由人分析，再告知你結果，還是由你自己分析，看結果一步一步的出現？事實上，你的選擇只得一個，只能靠自己，因別人的分析，人言人殊，你信哪一個？
這個「吹脹了」（inflated）的金價有甚麼好處？以後任何政府都不能亂印鈔票，要印，先要有金。由於任何政府都不能亂印鈔票，鈔票的發行量就受到限制，就可以恢復人們對鈔票的信心。
以前謂不可以回到金本位的原因是，以金價只在幾百元以至一、兩千元一盎司時，以黃金為本所能印出來的鈔票量會少，這會帶來嚴重通縮，例如香港政府的持金於金價每盎司1,300美元，只值100萬元時，就只可以印100萬元的鈔票量。那時每呎樓價，可能只是一個仙，那時不愁冇「平價」樓買，平價要用「」號，是因為屆時閣下人工可能只是0.0001仙，樓價縮，有乜理由你人工唔縮，咁大幅縮，一定全民縮死。
美黃金儲備可抵外匯衝擊
但如我們給些創意，調過來想，只要金價漲，價漲到等同全球的貨幣量時，則閣下人工，樓價仍是跟今時差不多，一個早餐仍是26元，但千萬不要叫金箔燒賣，因那時金價已升至逾萬美元一盎司。只金價貴，大家不會死，只要早餐價不貴，米價不貴便OK，談了這一堆，有甚麼意義！
大家都知美國印了N量美元，美債，大家亦知美國不可能無止境地再印下去，因為歐元、人民幣一企穩，就算世上有1/4的之前揸美元者轉揸人民幣、歐元時，美債將現擠兌，美元或有信心危機，你是美國國家領導人，會不會容許這樣的事情發生？不會，因為一出現就可能會失控，亦因此美國政府一定要阻止歐元/人民幣可以廣泛流通，從而帶來美元金融危機。
歐元於1992年面世，亦委實搶走了些美元的光采，美匯跌，但不久有歐元危機，美匯又回升，如今歐元危機漸褪，再加上人民幣如於2020年真的能自由兌換，並能為市場所接受時，則到2030年、2050年時，美元在歐元與人民幣相夾擊時，會不會痛苦了？
美國一方面不能減太多印美元的速度，但同一時期美國不印美元又不成，一個可以的方法是回歸金本位。當美國講，我知衰，今後大家印銀紙時請先出示持有黃金量，美元率先「晒冷」，結果？請看表，是Pivotfarm（一家投資公司）對十個國家2013黃金儲備的總結。
美國是今時持有最多黃金的國家，不單如此，其持金量佔其外儲比例達71.7％，而中國黃金量佔外儲比例只為1.2％，你人民幣要國際化？可以，但就絕不可能對美元起衝擊。
筆者以上所言，是否發神經，好彩連華爾街也有人陪我發神經，華爾街見聞有如下報道：《中國黃金數據猜想：500噸黃金去哪兒了？》它這個故事是：
來個簡單歸納，中國黃金協會本月公布：2013年，中國超越印度成為全球最大的黃金消費國，黃金消費量首次突破1,000噸，達到1,176.40噸，同比激增41.36％。同在這一年，中國全年國內黃金產量同比增長6％，達428.163噸。但也是在2013年，中國由香港進口黃金規模同比幾乎翻倍，達1,158噸。這一年裏中國經上海進口黃金數量並未公開。由以上進口量和產量計算，2013年，中國實際黃金消耗量應該是1,604.163噸（1,176.40+428.163），加上經上海進口的黃金規模，總消耗量預計可能超過1700噸。這個數據比中國黃金協會公布的消耗量多約500噸。也就是說，根據黃金協會的數據，這相差的500噸黃金沒有消耗。
各國搶金 新一輪升浪將至
可中國央行的數據告訴我們，官方儲備也沒有增加：截至2013年年底，中國官方黃金儲備仍為1,054噸，持平2009年4月數據，連續五年不變。照這樣推算，500噸黃金就不知去向了。所以，現在中國央行就面對一個直接的問題，去年金價大跌的時候當真沒有逢低囤積黃金？
低吸高拋符合常理。去年「中國大媽」都趁金價下跌蜂擁淘金，即便中國官方趁低價位買入黃金也沒甚麼大驚小怪的。而且，當美聯儲逐步退出QE時，中國等擔心國際資本流出衝擊的發展中國家有理由未雨綢繆，囤積黃金以備不時之需。
Pivotfarm估計，中國央行可能對增加黃金儲備的猜疑保持沉默，如果囤積黃金確有其事，一旦公諸於眾也會激起金價進一步上漲，這是中國央行不想看到的形勢。
去年十月華爾街見聞曾報道，GoldMoney的研究主管Alasdair Macleod將中國囤積黃金與地緣政治聯繫到一起。他認為有一點值得注意：通過上海合作組織，中國和俄羅斯在多國的支持下正在建立一個經濟集團，這個經濟集團有一個共同特徵——黃金，幾乎所有的上海合作組織國家均在儲備黃金。
中國官方黃金儲備量五年來不變，美國於70年代不再允美元換金，但就未如歐洲一些國家般去沽金，仍然手握這麼多黃金，近日不少央行，連歐洲一些央行也買回黃金，都是已知的事實，但就沒有解釋，今日筆者提出這個回歸金本位的解釋，你信不信由你，但如果按筆者推想發展，金價將有機會升、升、升。升到幾多，不知，筆者只知，每年二月，會重刊此文。一就證明我錯，一就證明貨幣危機將臨。
Interview with Carl-Ludwig Thiele, Member of the Executive Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank, published in Handelsblatt on 19 February 2014.
Translation: Deutsche Bundesbank
Interview conducted by Norbert Häring and Jens Münchrath.
Mr Thiele, do you consider yourself a kind of psychotherapist of the German soul?
No, why should I?
Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann described the partial transfer of German gold from New York as a trust-building measure in Germany.You are the one responsible for organising this major logistical undertaking.
Indeed, we are inspiring trust by storing half of the 3,400 tonnes of gold in Frankfurt by 2020. Building trust also means being transparent. We were the first central bank to publish details of our storage facilities, including the respective quantities of gold stored there.
Is there a scenario in which gold could begin to be used in monetary policy?
A highly theoretical scenario would involve extreme turmoil on the foreign exchange markets. Germany safeguards its solvency through reserve assets. In addition to foreign currency, our reserve assets include gold reserves. This gold could be pledged or exchanged directly for foreign currency. That is also why we have left the other half of our gold reserves in New York and London. Although we thankfully do not envisage such a crisis scenario, central banks are designed for the long term.
In October 2012, you promised the German Bundestag that you would transfer a total of 150 tonnes of gold from New York to Frankfurt by 2015. In January 2013, you extended the time frame to 2020 and increased the amount to 300 tonnes. What time frame are you looking at now?
The plans are not contradictory. We specified our initial target in October 2012. In January 2013, we then presented a new gold storage plan and specified a new target that is considerably higher than the first. Instead of only 150 tonnes, we are now transferring 300 tonnes of gold from New York to Germany.
So both targets still apply?
We now consider ourselves bound to the new gold storage plan. But the three years have not yet passed. We shall wait and see. We are on the right track in any case.
But the members of the German Bundestag have acted on the assumption of the initial promise.The second has got a more long-term oriented time frame. Was your initial promise overly ambitious? In the first year, you only returned five tonnes from the USA.
It is not a question of “returning”. The gold is being transferred to Germany for the first time. Until 1998, only 2% of our gold, or thereabouts, was stored in Germany. In the first year, we transported five tonnes from New York. This year, we will transfer 30 to 50 tonnes, or perhaps even more, from New York to Frankfurt. And there is still next year to come.
Does that mean that the target of 150 tonnes is still attainable?
Since we are in the midst of an ongoing process, I would like you to ask me the question again in two years’ time. In any case, we will store half of the German gold reserves in Germany by 2020 at the latest.
Why are you content with such a low target for this year?Is the programme still experiencing teething problems in its second year?
No, it is not. We have planned the timing of the transfers in such a way as to ensure that 300 tonnes are transferred from New York to Germany by 2020 at the latest.
There are these rumours that either the gold in New York is no longer there or you do not have unrestricted access to it.
Why have you not called in auditors or other externals to oversee the transfers in response to such rumours?
It astounds me that Handelsblatt pays any attention to such absurd rumours. I was in New York myself in June 2012 with the colleagues responsible for managing the gold reserves and saw for myself how our money is stored in the vault there. The Americans have never stonewalled or hindered us in any way. On the contrary, their cooperation has been most constructive in every respect. Our internal audit team was present last year during the on-site removal of gold bars and closely monitored everything. The smelting process is also being monitored by independent experts.
Does this also apply to opportunities to inspect the stocks?
You said a year ago that discussions on the matter with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were making good progress.
That is correct. We have enjoyed an excellent relationship of trust with the New York Fed for many decades. As regards the details of the contracts, however, we are bound by confidentiality which we cannot unilaterally break. From my visit to New York, I can tell you that a number of bars selected by us were removed, inspected and reweighed even while I was there. The inspections conducted by our internal audit team, during which an external auditor was also present, were also completed to our utmost satisfaction.
Was an external auditor present during your visit to the New York Fed gold storage facility in June 2012?
No, not during my visit. However, an external auditor was present for part of the time during the internal audit team’s inspection of stocks.
Did the gold from New York have to be melted down immediately?
The gold was removed from the vault in the presence of the internal audit team and transported to Europe. Only once the gold had arrived in Europe was it melted down and brought to the current bar standard. Some of the bars in our stocks in New York were produced before the Second World War. It was confirmed after the melting process, as anticipated, that these bars were absolutely fine.
The Federal Court of Auditors (FCA) sparked the debate by calling for an inspection of Germany’s gold holdings abroad.When you announced in October 2012 that part of the holdings were to be transferred to Germany, the FCA responded that this was a first step, but not a comprehensive procedure. Is the FCA now satisfied?
The FCA never demanded that the Bundesbank transfer gold to Germany. It was more concerned with extending its rights with regard to inspecting gold reserves abroad. The Bundesbank’s internal audit department now has rights it never used to have. The Budget Committee has acknowledged the FCA’s report, which concludes this discussion. Incidentally, the FCA examined the Bundesbank’s annual accounts for 2012 and found no irregularities.
The FCA claims it has no knowledge of newly agreed audit rights.
The FCA has access to all information at all times. I am sure the President of the FCA will be able to confirm this for you.
If the intention was to build trust, would it not have been better to postpone the smelting processso that you would have been able to present sceptics with the original bars?
Prior to transportation, the original gold bars were handed over to us in New York. Our internal audit team checked the numbers of the bars there and then against its own lists. The very same gold arrived at the European gold smelters that we had commissioned. This ought to demonstrate to everyone that such conspiracy theories are completely unfounded.
Calling in external auditors or critics was not an option?
The Bundesbank’s internal audit department is involved in the process from start to finish. Independent experts were present during the smelting process.
Are there any advantages for the Americans in storing gold for other nations? After all, they are protecting our reserves free of charge.
To answer this question, you need to look at the historical context. As you may know, gold reserves were established during the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. Given the threat from the East at the time, it seemed the safest option was to store German gold as far west as possible. The gold was therefore stored in New York from the outset.
So the Americans are taking on high storage costs for nothing in return?
No, why high storage costs? The gold has been stored there for decades. The storage rooms already exist.
Security guards cost money…
It is not just our gold that they protect, but also that of other central banks. But that is a matter for the New York Fed.
Just over a year ago, you were asked whether storing gold with the victors of the Second World War was not perhaps an echo of the old Bonn Republic when Germany was not yet a fully sovereign state. Back then, your answer was rather vague. What is your answer today?
To my knowledge, gold was stored in New York, London and Paris mainly for security policy reasons. We transferred 930 tonnes of gold from London more than ten years ago without experiencing any difficulties with the Bank of England or upsetting German-British relations. The same applies to the Banque de France and the New York Fed.
