2013年小弟寫過一篇講巴塞爾協定與黄金的文章，温故知新，有興趣的可以重温一下。時間過得真快，今年已到了實行協定之時了。最近馬田亦有撰文提及這件事。他不認為歐洲銀行不會因為協定的實施而增持黃金，理由是我們不是處於金本位之下⋯⋯國債同樣有作為銀行資本的能力，要直接國債危機再次爆發，黄金的對沖功能才會顯現。
看待這件事，小弟覺得有一點要留意。根據協定，銀行的黄金儲備會按「市價」作資本入賬。喚言之，金價愈高，他們的資本充足比率便愈高。金價上升，對政府，對擁有黄金儲備的銀行、對官僚，變為有利，金價愈升，代表他們口袋的資本愈多。從這兩三年全球各大央行努力增持黄金的行動，可知一二。Gold Fever似乎正在一步步來臨！
3 則留言:
joe兄回來真及時,馬有最新文章,不知說什麼呢?
Seems it is not the fact
Gold Under Basel III
Gold is an asset. Under the new regulations, gold is assigned a Required Stable Funding of 85%. This is up there with equities. In other words, regulators see it as risky to hold gold, so they want to make sure that banks fund it mostly using liabilities that cannot be pulled. With expensive liabilities.
The gold community should not be cheering this as good for gold. We should be screaming bloody murder. Gold is not risky, like equities. Gold has no default risk, and its price risk is not that high. In fact, if a balance sheet holds a small amount of gold, it acts as a hedge. It reduces drawdowns (we plan to publish a paper on this soon).
The World Gold Council submitted comments to Federal Reserve, on the proposed rule "Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements…” It argued that gold should be included in the definition of “highly liquid assets”, and should not require term funding under the Net Stable Funding Ratio.
The World Gold Council included quotes from HSBC, UBS, and other banks and banking associations, as well as the London Bullion Market Association. They each argue for a low or zero Required Stable Funding.
Basel III assigns gold an 85%, which is the opposite of low.
https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2019-04-02/Will-Basel-III-Send-Gold-to-the-Moon-Report-2-Apr.html
thx adam
張貼留言