Global Gold Coin And Bar Demand Surged 28% To Record 1,654 Tonnes In 2013

GoldCore's picture

Today’s AM fix was USD 1,314.00, EUR 957.59 and GBP 787.44 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,326.00, EUR 967.60 and GBP 791.97 per ounce. 

LBMA closing fix yesterday was USD 1,327.50, EUR 968.55 and GBP 794.15 per ounce.
The U.S. markets were closed for the President’s Day holiday yesterday.

Gold drifted lower today as traders took profits from recent gains, but gold held not far off 3 and a 1/2 month highs due to a weaker U.S. dollar and concerns over U.S. and global economic growth.

Webinar: Gerald Celente On Strategies For Protecting Your Wealth In 2014 And Beyond
Join Gerald Celente on this broadcast this Thursday as he examines the opportunities in 2014 and in the coming uncertain years.

Gold in U.S. Dollars, 5 Years - (Bloomberg)

Bullion is up 10% this year as investors and store of value buyers see the 28% fall in 2013 as a buying opportunity. The volatility and weakness in equities globally due to emerging market turmoil and economic concerns is leading to safe haven demand.

Silver also fell but wasn't too far from a 3-1/2 month high of $21.96 hit on Monday. Spot silver prices rose for a 12th day yesterday, the longest rally since at least 1968, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The World Gold Council’s global supply and demand figures have been released. They confirm what was already known - huge physical demand for coins and bars globally was counter acted by  significant liquidations by COMEX speculators and weak hand ETF investors.

Gold Demand Trends Full Year 2013 makes interesting reading nevertheless. The World Gold Council said full-year 2013 gold demand was 3,756 tonnes, valued at $170 billion and down from 4,415 tonnes in the previous year due to ETF liquidations.

The data confirms that 2013 saw record demand for coins and bars globally but especially in China, Japan and much of Asia.

Annual global investment in bars and coins reached 1,654 tonnes, up from 1,289 tonnes in 2012, a rise of 28%, and the highest figure since the World Gold Council’s data series began in 1992. For the full year, Chinese and Indian investment in gold bars and coins was up 38% and 16%, respectively.

Although much smaller markets in terms of volume, in the U.S. bar and coin demand was up 26% to 68 tonnes, and in Turkey it was up 113% to 102 tonnes.

China became the world’s largest store of wealth buyer of gold in 2013. They are not consumers as only a tiny fraction of  gold is ever consumed. Chinese people bought a record 1,066 metric tons of gold last year, as sudden price falls led to a 32% jump in bars, coins and jewelry buying.

China’s increased purchases helped limit the decline in gold prices as western speculators and investors sold 869.1 tons through exchange-traded products backed by bullion.

Chinese gold demand surged past Indian demand making China the world’s number one buyer of gold. However, India's gold demand remained buoyant in 2013 and rose by 13% to 945 tonnes compared to 2012.  The Indian demand number does not capture the full level of demand as the governments punitive import taxes led to a huge jump in black market activity and the smuggling of gold in huge quantities into India.

Gold demand in Japan jumped threefold in 2013 as people in Japan sought refuge from Prime Minister ShinzoAbe’s campaign to stoke inflation and weaken the yen. Demand for jewelry, bars and coins increased to 21.3 metric tons last year from 6.6 tons in 2012. Demand for jewelry rose 5.4% to 17.6 tons and Japan became a net buyer of bars and coins for the first time since 2005 with 3.7 tons of purchases. There is scope for a massive increase in Japanese  investment, pension and store of wealth demand in the coming years.

Central banks added 61 tons to gold reserves in the fourth quarter, the least since the end of 2010, and full-year purchases declined 32% to 368.6 tons, according to the council. Nations added to holdings for 12 consecutive quarters and will continue purchasing amounts in the hundreds of tons which should support gold.

It is important to note that full-year 2013 total global gold demand of 3,756 tonnes is worth just $170 billion which is what the Federal Reserve prints in less than three months. It is much less than what the Fed, ECB, BOE, BOJ and PBOC and other central banks are printing every month.
Global gold coin and bar demand at 1,654 tonnes per annum is worth just $75 billion which is not far off what the Federal Reserve is printing each month now. This shows how while demand has increased in recent years, the demand is very sustainable and there remains room for a significant jump in demand in the coming years.

Webinar: Gerald Celente On Strategies For Protecting Your Wealth In 2014 And Beyond
Join Gerald Celente on this broadcast this Thursday as he examines the opportunities in 2014 and in the coming uncertain years.

Gerald Celente needs little introduction: Founder of The Trends Research Institute in 1980, Gerald Celente is a pioneer trend strategist. He is author of the national bestseller Trends 2000 and Trend Tracking (Warner Books) and publisher of the internationally circulated Trends Journal newsletter.

This webinar is scheduled for this Thursday, Feb 20, 2014 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM GMTand will be moderated by Mark O'Byrne, Head of Research at GoldCore.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sufiy's picture

Gold Catalyst: U.S. Government Says 'No Inflation' As Food Prices Soar 

Everybody who is living the normal life knows that all food prices are going up every year. So far inflation was exported to emerging markets and places like China with strict management of its currency valuation. Jim Rickards has explained it in the great detail in his book: Currency Wars. Now after The Currency Wars we are entering The Financial Wars. China has already cut its US Treasury holdings most since 2011 and bought the record amount of Gold. Watch Yuan to go higher now.The great inflation episode can be much closer than a lot of people think.Rising velocity of money will push inflation back into the Western system and Gold already smells that it is coming with its recent breakout.

Calculus99's picture

Got to love the anti-Gold spin - Look at this article (and of course no comments are allowed) -

dreadnaught's picture

well, i have the itch to buy around $50,000 of Au PHYSICALw/ really what are the chances of the Dems and OR Repukes coming after it when the SHTF? how do i buy it off the grid? trust....etc-no bank is gonna go under storing my egg, thats for sure, vault or not

DerdyBulls's picture

I've never seen the following raised on ZH regarding inflation which is why we buy metal or used to with fury. Check the FED chart Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions. Then compare M1. The expansion of excess reserves has offset the expansion of the monetary base and M1. This has never happened in banking history. Commercial bankers are unwilling to expand their loans into the general economy. M1V is actually diminishing. This has messed up all previous cause-and-effect relationships between the expansion of the monetary base, the expansion of M1, and the increase in prices (inflation). All economic schools are in denial. Nobody dares to admit this. Nobody will admit his economic forecasts regarding an increase in prices has been knocked back to the blackboard. When excess reserves begin to trend down, this should be a trigger to look for. But with the enormous power this anomaly has afforded and affords CBs I don't see droves running to coin dealers or buying digital soon. Sadly, what does seem apparent, and seemingly unstoppable at this point in history, is the wholesale nationalization of capital markets at a most rapid pace with little inflation.

GoldenTool's picture

Hey!  Why is the water on the shoreline receding like that?

Mr Giggles's picture

1oz of silver phizz for every day off retirement, what a dream,

every thing else is mere fripery.

stack on.

KnightTakesKing's picture

That would be a hell of a lot of physical. If you retire young, you might need a bigger boat.

ncdirtdigger's picture

20 years avg retirement, 7300 days/oz. may almost fill a decent sized rifle safe. Not that I would know from experience or anything. Boating accident and all.

SAT 800's picture

It can be stored in a vault; by honest people. it's an excellent plan; because it will keep its purchasing power; unlike "dollars' which will not.

Ar-Pharazôn's picture

a vault? you mean a bank vault?


the same banks that in europe are considering to take money from savers directly from their bank account?


yeah, good idea

Randoom Thought's picture

Is this playing on the gold fear trade or the gold greed trade? It is so hard to tell.

IPA's picture

I often get into conversations where people be like, do you think gas prices will go higher? And i am at a loss because these people accept inflation as the natural order of things, but increasing commodity prices over time? That's crazy!

Does any one know if a good way to explain how inflation causes prices to go up, even if it is slightly offset by reducing the amount of food in food. Hmm that actually summs it up never mind 

thorgodofthunder's picture

Gold will drop to about $1100/oz this year.

fijisailor's picture

That's one hell of a TA you have there guy.

IPA's picture

I am not doubting you, but every gold bug and their step sister is saying gold will go lower... 

SAT 800's picture

I'm not. I'm not exactly a gold bug; I'm more interested in Silver; because I like to maximise my benefits while minimizing my risks; but I'm record here as saying about two weeks ago; that it looked to me like the bottom was in and it was time to buy Silver; in fact; I said this a couple of times. I do not expect gold to go down this year.

Never One Roach's picture

"No one saw this coming,"...excpet for most of the ZH'ers.

Uber Vandal's picture

But, But, But the World Gold Council said that demand slid 15% in 2013.

Kind of funny how Market Watch had that article, but it is now singing a far different tune:




SAT 800's picture

It's very silly to talk about "demand" and "supply" in this market. It's a market that's driven by human decisions about fear and greed. The 800lb. gorilla in the room is the ETF;s; like GLD and SLV; which contrary to the common internet craziness, do own, and buy the metals; and no I am not reccomending them to anyone, but they have a huge effect on prices. Obviously, this is a mass mind phenomenon; and we can see now that the big ETF;s are buying again; for how long, or even exactly "why"; I don't know. but then neither does anyone else. It's often important to realize when you don't know something instead of making up stories. it's alright not to know; most things we don't really know.

gaoptimize's picture

I read ( ) that 3,000 tonnes were mined in 2013.  If this ("It is important to note that full-year 2013 total global gold demand of 3,756 tonnes") is true, then where did the 760 tonnes come from?

bonin006's picture

From Germany (but they might not know it yet).

SAT 800's picture

I really don't have time to read any of these numbers; I would hate to be foolish enough to be influenced by any of them. I just look at the price charts and try to have a reasonable long term outlook.

fuu's picture

Nice $0.58 rise off the overnight low.

SAT 800's picture

I've been watching the totals in their vaults increase month over month. First they only had a London Vault for Silver; but now they have several around the world. private citizen ownership is ballooning.

Save_America1st's picture

nothing to see here folks...move along...Buy more stawks!!!


Jim Cramer, CNB.S.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

silver is going to mid 22s pretty soon here. Very good candle today bullish engulfing long tail wick.

Silveramada's picture

Ag flirted with 22$ mark today and may test solid resistance at 22.50 this week...HOWEVER is also getting a little ahead of himself and a profit-taking correction back to ~20$ is possible also in the next week or two, if you look at gold, we could run to 1360-1400$ level, then correct to, say, 1250-1275 and then UP look at the chart: is forming a very bullish reverse H&S. Metals are in a very different year than 2013...

Save_America1st's picture

That Credit Suisse 3X Bull ETF called USLV is looking like at least a 10 bagger and better down the road from here.  When silver was at 37 back in 2011 the USLV was at 600/share!

Today it's up again 6.7% at 63/share.  Not much to lose ont he downside, but shit, once silver takes off this sucker could seriously pop!!!


I've also got a little each of:  JNUG and NUGT

Can't wait to see them rocketing away from the launch pad one of these days

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

It is indeed.
My math says 10 x 63.65 = 636.50 with (USLV x 2800 ) 1/3.92 = 39.32 / oz USD

By the time silver = 100/oz USD we'll see USLV = 100 3.92 / 2800 = 24708.25 at least. With the 2591 constant I identified for much of the overlay of the charts this could turn out to be 100 3.92 / 2591 = 26,701.31 per share. 419.5x to today's share price

fijisailor's picture

e=2.71828.  Where does 3.92 come from?

MeelionDollerBogus's picture slide 1 : regression (power) trend R2 = 0.98 USLV = silver 3.92 / 2364.56 slide 2 : projections with & without USLV ETF decay slide 3 : ETF decay on factor vs date, USLV & #silver

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Another good example using powers and not an exponential relation is AGQ vs silver.

AGQ is a 2x fund. The general relationship I found by matching prices & going from highest to lowest is a power of 2 and a factor of 6 (post-split; 24 pre-split). This varies a little, 6 to 6.09 for example but generally it works.


AGQ = silver 2 / 6

or in today's close,

76 = 21.52 2 / 6.09

There is no place for natural logs or e in this relationship. It doesn't fit the curve on the scatterplot.

I see one retard -1 already: every -1 is a declaration you hate math & think thermometers show higher numbers to be cooling and you probably also tell people they can't eat their gold.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

3.92 is for powers, e is for exponentials. It's not an exponential curve.

If you take all the prices that overlap and you look at the total range for USLV and for silver, you do this:

highest_USLV / lowest_USLV = A

highest_SILVER / lowest_SILVER = B

log(A) / log(B) = 3.92

The difference is what is constant: the base or the power?

if I'm using e and inversely ln(x) then the base is constant, not the power. In the USLV case the power is constant while the base is variable (and is the silver price).

For the gold vs silver relation it is exponential:

ln(silver) = gold x 3 / 2635 + 19/12

or also :

silver = e (gold x 3 / 2635 + (19/12))

or silver = 4.87116599925 x e (gold x3/2635)

since e (19/12) = 4.87116599925

For the -1-tard: you can't do math. Look it up, this is not opinion. It's math.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

USLV won't go that high. Decay on these things is real. Look at VIX following ETFs. Looks like a half life graph. I think holding for a month or maybe two is okay. I had SPXU decay when I held it too long. Of course futures themselves is direct way, but leverage is serious (silver is 50 bucks a penny).

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Already checked the decay in the constant - it is barely 0.5% knocked off over 3 years time. It's good.

SPXU is another story, does not decay like SPXU, VXX, HVU, etc., each decay is unique.

The way to plot it is to figure out the constant:

a = b power x factor and plot the factor.

Once you see the factor rapidly move on a non-zero slope you have found the decay. In the case of USLV it's barely there at all, hovering from 2550 to 2850, barely impacting the price as the power is 3.92 and this makes the numbers very big before dividing by the factor (so actually it's 1/2830 for example, though I'm using 2830 for brevity).

Go try this on all the prices you can find in the chart, go to and download the CSV data for it.

USLV = silver 3.92 / 2600 and see how accurate it is. Then do it this way:

put USLV in column E (close: a is date, b,c,d are open,high,low), and in F put spot silver, and make column G yourself.

Row 2 should be the first data row but you can skip the empty USLV rows since USLV won't fill every row spot sliver has, it hasn't existed that long.

G2 = power(E2,3.92)/F2

and copy/paste that down to the end of the data.

Plot column G for which you get an answer (instead of #DIV0) and use the date in column A (as given by


Now you can see the ETF decay.

I did it for HVU and got this:

It's a little more instructive than the red arrow here because now once you can produce the virtual price of the underlying to which it's linked (HVU linked to SPY) you can now stop at the place where the slope is wrong, and re-plot it with another power, and keep doing that to show the decay in a manner you can quantify with an equation.
With USLV I would not expect to see worse than 1/3500 as a factor and that still puts USLV = 50 3.92 / 3500 = 1305.85 /share for 50/oz which is a huge jump.
I would expect splits along the way but whatever is already held will retain its value if no partial shares happen in a reverse split (which I'm not expecting, it would be dilution instead).

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

I would say just look at SLV (piece of shit but still tracks price very well obviously) and look at what it has done and USLV should be about 3x for better or for worse. I had SPXU at about ES 1755 recently and even on this downturn in ES not long ago to 1733, it wasn't in the money even. 

I'd say just buy a silver futures contract if you're planning on capitalizing and leveraging the move up, while prudently stacking phyzz I would hope. Silver futures just rolls, no decay or expense fees ETFs carry, and no tracking error worries. They have a mini silver futures contract I think, too. Silver is $25 per tick on regular NYMEX and that is for just half a cent move. 

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

the risk is too high for a silver futures contract. I would consider ALL the money lost because I would expect a Corzine event. Also you can get margin calls on futures but you can avoid them completely using USLV, SLV, AGQ, HZU (tsx), etc.

Playing per tick instead of getting this massive leverage just increases your cost in & decreases your % gain along with adding a larger loss for a broke counter-party.

There's no way your single contract of a silver future will get anywhere near the gains my USLV shares will, dollar for dollar, and I can get equal gain to you in dollars for perhaps 3% of the total input cost in dollars with no margin at all.

That's real risk reduction & that's the real smart play. Futures contracts are for suckerz.

Let's say I get USLV at just 5 shares at 60. Let's further put my trading fee at $10.
5x60+10 = 310 to get in & 320 to sell so my break-even is 320/5 = $64/share.
With the equation USLV = silver 3.92/2800 my break-even happens when silver= 21.88.
if I want $10,000 profit which is 10000/310= 32.258x or 3125.8% gain the 5 shares need to reach
$10320 or 2,064/share so I cover my last fee to sell. (2064 x 2800)1/3.92 = 53.084
so 53/oz silver. On your futures contract what will you get from 53/oz?
On a huge dip to the down-side on the way, let's say silver hits 18, what happens to your contract?
What happens to me?
you get stopped out on a margin call, I just sit tight as USLV hits 16 or 15.83 and maybe buy some more.
That's a gigantic risk re-balancing in my favour.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

I have no idea if silver is going to 18ish again to try to shake out more weak hands, or if this is it and full speed ahead to 50+. Short term it looks very likely that within a week this goes to mid 22s, prob. 23. These bullish engulfing candles are reliable, and this up move has some force to it.


also am looking for WTIC to hit 108/barrel pretty soon, based on idiosyncratic TA.


MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I could only be so lucky. For silver = 18 I'd expect USLV to dip to 32.
I would very much like in at that price though if you've already bought in I imagine you'd be unhappy in the short-term to see that.

tallen's picture

It's a 3x leveraged etf. Every time it drops, you're leveraging at a smaller dollar figure.



Lets say silver investment drops 5% from $1 to $0.95

3x Levered drops 15% to $0.85


Now silver investment bounces back to $1, up 5.26%

3x Levered goes to $0.986.


This is in a matter of two days with heavy volatility. It in theory cannot ever rise to its previous peaks without silver going substantially higher than it was then.

Tho being long it at this point it time can work out well because the leverage compounds and if it's appreciating, is obviously beneficial.


Then there's the management fees etc. It makes more sense to be long the riskier gold names than the 3x leveraged ETF.

Quinvarius's picture

This is not entirely accurate.  Only the leveraged bear ETFs have massive decay built in.  There is some decay in the long ETFs, mostly due to how they maintain leverage, fees, and compounding moves, but the math of leveraging works out pretty evenly in basic day to day trading as long as there are no gigantic moves.  The recovery back to the starting point after a drop is a bigger percentage than the drop, and they go by the percentages.  I am not advocating these ETFs.  But there is a massive difference between the levered long ETFs and short ETFs due to the fact that the short ETFs gain in price as the underlying drops.  So losses in levered bear ETFs are semi permanent. 

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Your math is incorrect.
you need to work with powers & factors.
+15% FOR EXAMPLE is 1.15 factor.
-5% is for example 0.95 factor.
You can't use + / - % terms, it is a nonsense convention that doesn't work with powers.
The 3x fund is for example theoretically power 3 but the math itself shows it is power 3.92.
This is easily demonstrated by division of terms leading to a linear graph of the factor hovering around 2600.
The math is: silver 3.92 / USLV for each price pair, the output is the factor, and you plot the factor.
Where the factor fails to follow a linear pattern & takes a bend up or down is the decay.
You can then find another factor & power to quantify the decay.

ETF decay is an important issue but is unique to each ETF. Without charting the decay you can't know the decay.
For example in this chart you can see the HVU etf decay but it isn't something you can quantify with an equation.
With this chart you now can, although I didn't personally go that far.
Those are the red lines slope far from zero (negative).
"Then there's the management fees etc. It makes more sense to be long the riskier gold names than the 3x leveraged ETF."
It does not.
The miners will never get this 3.92 power leverage & they also stand a bigger risk of going bust than the ETF, a sudden drop out of all correlation or perhaps management just goes broke one day.
A move of silver to 39.32/oz would bring USLV to 10-bagger state yet NONE of the miners would do so at the same price/time move.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Thanks for the example.  It makes more sense.

Save_America1st's picture

thank you for the reply and info!  I definitely don't know the inside baseball type info on these things.  I was thinking of grabbing like 1 share just to see how it would play out in the long haul once silver takes off and gets back towards 40+ again.  Was just hoping...

I'm way too small time to go big into that kinda's phyzz only for me.  But how awesome would it be to pay 70 bucks for a share of this stuff and then see it hit 700 one day.  Cash it in and grab some extremely cheap ounces of phyzz!  That was my thinking since the miners seem to have definitely bottomed and things are looking up from here on out, hopefully...

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

The person who advised you also doesn't know.
I know.
You need to do scatterplots or you can't get the answer.
This for example is the math:
USLV = silver 3.92 / 2830 today
and 2600 is a good match for most of the chart.
My projection for silver within 3 years is to hit 260/oz.
Within 2 years to hit 150/oz.
Within 1 year to hit 100/oz.
100 3.92 / 2600 = 26,608.88
150 3.92 / 2600 = 130,408.05
252.22 3.92 / 2600 = 1,000,000
260 3.92 / 2600 = 1,126,476.60

Australian Economist's picture

Leveraged ETFs are a waste of money unless you're an algo, put your money in miners if you want leveraged exposure to PMs, plus you can hold them long term without the decay and maybe dividends if you're lucky.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Every person can out-perform an algo IF that person can make a scatterplot chart to verify performance of the leveraged ETF. I've made money in the past from the AGQ ETf in 2010 and there's plenty money to be made using USLV (and AGQ) this time around.
AGQ is power 2, USLV is power 3.92.
For AGQ post-split it's currently AGQ = silver 2 / 6.03
Miners will be a giant losing play in comparison as they typically don't reach higher than 1.5x ETf equivalent and FREQUENTLY fall off the correlation wagon to oblivion because of hedging or operations problems. The ETFs are more reliable.

SAT 800's picture

Hard to predict; but a very, very strong day.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Look at the chart history of silver on the daily; every time a long wicked candle like this prints, it goes up sizably the way it should bear or bull. I use for this. Not saying it is a sure thing of course but probabilistic play nonetheless. Could go to 21.60 or so first.