Print Friendly and PDF

Will Basel 3 Accords Soon
Boost Gold and Silver Prices?

Patrick Heller, editor,
Liberty’s Outlook

The Basel 3 Accords are a set of global financial reforms developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision under the domain of the Bank for International Settlements, an organization headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. These coming changes in bank system operations are to strengthen regulation, supervision, and risk management within the worldwide banking industry.

Basel 1 reforms were implemented in 1988 and Basel 2 revisions took effect beginning in 2008.

Work on the Basel 3 changes began in 2008, after the onset of the Great Recession. The original version was adopted in 2010, to be implemented from 2013 to 2015.

Some changes called for in Basel 3 were so extreme that subsequent revisions were made and implementation was repeatedly delayed. As it now stands, some of the impact of Basel 3 takes effect at the end of June this year, while all changes become effective on January 1, 2023.

The goal of the forthcoming Basel regulations is to limit the levels of risk that banks take on in the pursuit of profits, which would hopefully prevent a major worldwide financial crisis if markets turn negative.

It’s a wonderful idea in theory. However, in practice, some changes could be so disruptive to the actions of some governments, central banks, and financial institutions that there is significant pushback.

Part of the Basel 3 regulations that could be especially disruptive are those involving bank trading of precious metals.

Many of the world’s largest banks trade metals for customers and for their own accounts. In trading these metals, they are either handled as allocated or unallocated assets.

With allocated precious metals, the customer is the owner of specifically identified and segregated coins or bars. The brand name, weight, purity, and serial numbers of bars are recorded. The bank merely provides storage services. When a customer withdraws or sells these assets, the bank releases these exact same assets. Because these assets are property of the customer, the bank does not own them. They are not listed as assets of the bank or as liabilities that the bank owes to its customers.

It is an entirely different matter with unallocated storage of precious metals.

In unallocated storage, the bank’s customer does not own specifically identified coins or bars. Instead, the customer is an unsecured creditor of the bank, who has a claim against some of the assets owned by the bank. For example, a customer may have a 1,000-ounce silver bar in unallocated storage. The bank may be holding hundreds or thousands (or even none!) of these bars in unallocated storage, any one of which would be available to deliver on behalf of a customer if requested for withdrawal or sale. In unallocated storage, that thousand-ounce silver bar would be owned by the bank and listed as part of its assets. To offset that, the bank would also record a liability to the customer for the same value as it uses for the asset. So long as banks actually hold sufficient assets to cover these liabilities, there is no problem.

When banks trade precious metals, the use of unallocated storage has a lot of advantages. Banks don’t have to keep track of each bar and coin by individual owner, which saves a lot of paperwork and shuffling of assets when they change hands. However, there is a problem with unallocated storage.

Since the everyday turnover of precious metals involves only a relatively small percentage of the assets a bank may hold, the bank can fulfill the delivery needs even if it does not have physical custody and title to all of the precious metals it owes to customers.

This is a similar circumstance to a bank’s cash customers. On a day-to- day basis, banks do not face a high percentage of their customers showing up to withdraw all of their funds. Therefore, the banks are able to hold only a small percentage of their assets in the form of coins and currency when compared to their liability to customers who have checking or savings accounts or certificates of deposit.

This lack of need to have title and custody to a high percentage of physical precious metals in their vaults compared to their liabilities to customers has resulted in massive trading volumes in what I call paper assets.

Many banks today engage in what could be called fractional precious metals trading. They hold only a small percentage of their liability to their customers in physical metals in their vaults. They theoretically cover the rest of their precious metals liabilities by leasing gold from central banks, trading derivatives contracts, or using other paper forms.

Investment bank Morgan Stanley was caught in such a scam where it sold physical precious metals to customers and collected storage fees to hold them, but did not purchase the actual assets. Instead, this bank used customer funds to purchase other assets, many of them in paper form. Morgan Stanley settled a multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit on this issue in 2007 without agreeing with the charges.

How huge is this paper market, where banks may hold paper contracts to cover their liabilities to deliver physical precious metals? In a Commodity Futures Trading Commission hearing in March 2010, precious metals consultant Jeffrey Christian testified that these institutions may have sold their physical metals as much as 100 times the quantity of metal that they actually owned. Obviously, if all these owners contacted their bank to take delivery, the paper market would crash and the physical market prices would soar.

The world’s largest trading platform for precious metals is the London Bullion Market Association. Just in gold, it trades an average of $20 billion every day, which is more than $5 trillion annually. Virtually all of this trading is in the form of unallocated precious metals.

The New York COMEX is the world’s second largest platform for trading precious metals. The COMEX trading of gold futures and options contracts began in the mid-1970s specifically as a means for the US government and the primary trading partners of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to manipulate the price of gold. Virtually all trading in this market is for unallocated metals. The fractional reserve method trading of unallocated precious metals is the primary means by which the US government, the primary trading partners of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, allied central banks, and the Bank for International Settlements suppresses gold and silver prices.

By selling paper contracts, without having to deliver the physical metals, there is the appearance that there is a lot more gold and silver available on the market than there actually is. The result is that prices are lower than if buyers and sellers of precious metals traded on the basis of actual supply and demand information. As I have explained in the past, the prices of gold and silver effectively serve as a report card on the US government, US economy, and the US dollar. If precious metals prices are rising, that not only reflects poorly on the government, it also forces higher interest rates paid on government debt and pushes down the purchasing power of the dollar.

What This Might Mean For Precious Metals

Back to the Basel 3 Accord. The most important change for precious metals is that banks would be required to hold reserves against their assets. Under the coming regulations, banks would count unallocated precious metals at 85% of their value on the bank’s books in making the determination of how much it needs to hold in reserves against these assets.

However, banks would no longer be able to consider any of the liability for unallocated precious metals as part of their required reserves. Therefore, to comply with Basel 3 regulations, banks would have to either create a huge increase in their shareholders’ equity to provide the required reserves or they will be forced to sharply reduce or completely eliminate their trading in unallocated precious metals.

Will these banks take title and custody to many times the quantity of physical precious metals that they now hold? For all practical purposes that isn’t possible because there just aren’t enough physical metals available. Another obstacle is that these banks simply do not have the storage capacity to hold adequate inventory to provide sufficient reserves for their precious metals assets.

The practical effect of this part of the new Basel 3 regulation would be to almost completely wipe out the trading of unallocated precious metals in the London and New York markets. About the only trade that would survive would be for allocated metals.

Ten banks in continental Europe that are members of the London Bullion Market Association will implement the changes in precious metals trading as of the end of June this year. British banks will be required to adopt the new standards by January 1, 2022. Other banks around the world would comply by January 1, 2023. At least, those are the current scheduled implementation dates. With the elimination of most trading in unallocated storage, the US government could lose its primary tactic of suppressing gold and silver prices.

Between the increased demand for physical precious metals and the elimination of the use of unallocated precious metals to suppress prices, gold and silver prices might undergo huge increases.

This impact of these forthcoming market changes is so enormous that on May 4, 2021 the London Bullion Market Association and the World Gold Council submitted a paper to the Prudential Regulation Authority, the United Kingdom’s regulator of banks and the financial sector, asking that the changes in Basel 3 standards in trading unallocated precious metals be eliminated. This paper claimed that implementing the new regulations would undermine the ability of banks to clear and settle precious metals trading, drain liquidity from this market, sharply increase financing costs of such trades, and would limit central bank operations with precious metals.

The claim that the London Bullion Market Association may be almost forced to cease operations without this waiver also means that the COMEX trading of unallocated metals would also come to a virtual standstill.

How likely is it that the near-term implementation of the Basel 3 standards for trading unallocated precious metals will occur? That is the crucial question.

But, even if the implementation dates are once more postponed, that deferral might only apply to British banks.

Will The US Government Strike Back?

Another possible change suggested in the LBMA and WGC paper is to instead adopt the Swiss interpretation which considers it applicable only to unbalanced positions (where a bank owns a paper contract rather than physical metals to cover liabilities to customers.)

Time is running out to try to change or postpone the regulations before the first of these standards applies to continental European banks at the end of June this year.

Right now, the COMEX currently has about $97 billion in short sales of gold futures contracts and another $25 billion in short sales of silver futures. There will almost certainly be pressures for short sellers to cover these COMEX contracts as continental European banks scramble to cover their short positions.

With so much exposure, you can be sure that the US government will not do nothing. It has a huge incentive to find a way to continue to manipulate precious metals prices, despite possibly losing the major strategy it has used thus far to do so.

In a Federal Reserve Bank document from April 5, 1961, an unidentified senior Fed official explained that US foreign exchange and gold trading operations would not have their desired impact at manipulating markets unless the information on such trading was secret. To keep such activity secret, the government could use various tactics. First, it could delay the release of information. Second, it could disguise trading activity by combining it in reports with other financial activities. Even scarier, though, this document hinted that the government might also just not report some activities.

A 1999 International Monetary Fund (IMF) paper confirmed that official interventions in financial markets would have greater impact only if investors and the general public were unaware of such manipulation.

Therefore, in the absence of massive trading in unallocated gold, how else could the US government still hold down gold and silver prices after the new Basel 3 bank regulations take effect? It turns out that the federal government has multiple tactics to do so.

First, the Secretary of the Treasury could use the billions of dollars of assets of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, created as a provision of the Gold Reserve Act on January 31, 1934. This law explicitly authorizes the government to use its assets to secretly manipulate the price of gold. It could persuade other central banks to liquidate some gold reserves, to help private banks build up their required reserves to meet Basel 3 reserve requirements. The Bank of England sold half of its reserves from 1999 to 2001 to temporarily hold down prices.

Central banks could also increase their gold leasing and swaps activity, especially if they could avoid reporting such activity or fraudulently refuse to disclose it. In years past, the IMF required that a central bank that had custody of leased gold that it did not own and a central bank that had leased out the gold would issue reports that this leased gold was part of both of their official reserves. Several years ago, the IMF changed this requirement to allow (but still not require) that only the central bank that had title to the physical gold would report it as part of their reserves.

The Bank for International Settlements could also expand its gold swap operations to make it appear that private banks held more gold reserve assets than they actually did.

Finally, the federal government could also simply engage in secret behind-the-scenes trading to defraud investors and the American people as to the amount of bank reserves. This would not be the first time it has hidden its financial activities. A major recent example is the Federal Reserve Bank program initiated in September 2019 to inject liquidity into the overnight bank loan system in amounts now totaling more than $6 trillion. The Fed has refused, despite being required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, to inform Congress of the identity of which banks received these loans, and how much.

On the surface, it may seem that the provisions of the Basel 3 Accords may collapse the market for trading unallocated previous metals, with the result of pushing up gold and silver prices. It might – someday.

But, in practice, the US government could arrange to delay or reduce gold and silver price increases when the Basel 3 bank regulations take effect. However this works out, I still anticipate much higher gold and silver prices in the next six months to two years.


The bottom line is that the impact of the coming Basel 3 Accords will only slightly impact what happens to gold and silver prices. Prices of both metals are destined to soar because of soaring inflation of the US money supply, massive increases in government spending and debt, and the falling purchasing power of the US dollar.

Should the Basel 3 regulations have a greater than lesser impact on precious metals markets, that would accelerate how soon prices rise and lead to even greater increases. Even if they have minimal impact, gold and silver prices are still destined to rise significantly in the next six months to two years for all the other reasons having nothing to do with banking regulations.

If you have not yet already built an adequate holding of bullion-priced physical gold and silver coins and ingots, you need to do so sooner rather than later.

Editor’s Note: Patrick A. Heller is editor of Liberty’s Outlook newsletter, published by Liberty Coin Service, 400 Frandor Ave., Lansing, MI 48912, 1 year, 12 issues, $159. The newsletter was named Best Dealer Publication in 2020 and 2019 by Numismatic Literary Guild. Liberty Coin Service, celebrating their 50th anniversary, is a buyer of gold, silver, platinum and palladium bullion and quality rare coins. Shop the online store at

The Bull & Bear Financial Report

Copyright 2021 - 23 || All Rights Reserved
Reproduction in whole or part is strictly prohibited
without prior written permission.

NOTE: The Bull & Bear Financial Report does not itself endorse or guarantee
the accuracy or reliability of information, statements or opinions
expressed by any individuals or organizations posted on this site

The Bull & Bear Financial Report is published by

Website Designed & Maintained by Gemini Communications