Input Data Errors

Dear Readers,

I owe you an apology. I made a mistake. I am writing this letter in the first person, because I made the mistake. Let me explain what happened.


The wrong stuff went into the funnel in the upper left-hand corner…


I wrote software to calculate the gold basis and co-basis (and of course silver too). The app does not just calculate the near contract. It calculates the basis for many contracts out in the distance, so I can see the whole picture.

I developed a model for the fundamental gold price, based on the basis. My software calculates this, too (spoiler alert: the reported fundamental prices were high).

I have long since debugged it. It works reliably. So reliably, that every day I pored over the results, but I no longer checked the inputs and intermediate steps of the calculation. Now, in retrospect, I realize that I should have.

The root cause is simple. For as far back as I have ever seen, the symbol for a future has been a two-letter code for the commodity + a one letter for the month and one digit for the year. For example, gold is GC. December is Z. And 2017 is 7. So the December gold contract is “GC Z7”. Silver is SI, so December silver is “SI Z7”.

I did not expect my real-time quote provider to change year codes for contracts in 2018 and beyond. No longer is it one digit for year —8 in this case. Now it requires two digits. So the December 2018 gold contract is “GC Z18”. Even now that I have looked, I do not find any announcement of this change. I am not even sure if it is an official COMEX change, or just a quirk of one quote provider.


Data provider uncertainties


This error was compounded because my software was not programmed to notify me of a problem. In software, the only thing worse than a failure in a system that is used in production is a silent failure that goes unnoticed, and hence goes uncorrected. This failure went unnoticed.


System Upgrade

Before I get to the impact, I want to discuss how we will make sure this does not happen again.

My team and I have been working hard on a new website, and the centerpiece will be our ongoing data science work in the precious metals markets. We will publish about 45 graphs, with daily updates. Obviously, this is driven by a much more sophisticated software system than my humble application.

The new software is developed by one of the best coders in the world (not me, I’m rusty after not coding full-time in almost 15 years). Rudy Mathieu worked for my last company, a software company called DiamondWare.

Rudy has built a hardened, enterprise-grade software system (now undergoing extensive testing), and when it encounters an error, it does not fail silently. It is constantly checking the status of all key components, and has a dashboard so we can monitor how the software and the server running it are doing.

It emails us if anything goes wrong. It will instantly detect problems, such as a change in the year code or even the Spanish Inquisition, which nobody expects.


Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


For years, I have been publishing a unique view into the markets. Our new site takes it a thousand times further. I expect that it will become an essential tool for anyone who uses or trades gold. We need to ensure it is as reliable as clockwork.

I promise to make it so.


There are ways and means to keep coders line and boost their productivity


Data Error Impact

Back to the question: what was the net effect? My software was not able to calculate a basis for gold or silver contracts maturing in 2018 or beyond. However, my fundamental price model relies on them. Its accuracy began to suffer starting around last August.

This error continued to grow in magnitude. As of last week’s Report, the fundamental price of gold was overstated by about $175, and silver’s fundamental price by $2.30.

The correct fundamental prices as of Friday March 31 were about $1,260 and $16.70.

Interestingly — and this is important — the fundamental gold-silver ratio was robust to this error. The value stated in last week’s report, 75.75, was almost perfect. It was off from the revised estimated fundamentals by 0.2.

I say revised and estimated, because I went back over the time period where I have incomplete data and derived what I need. The result is good enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, as we say in America (but it has higher uncertainty).

There is a bigger lesson here. Monetary Metals focuses on the ratio (which we trade in our fund), because it is less error-prone, more accurate, and less risky than trading either metal against the dollar.

The bottom line is that on March 31, the corrected fundamental gold  price was above the market price, though not nearly so far above as I had reported it. It was about 1.4% over the market price (I reported 15.6% last week).

As an aside, my friend Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man blog wrote about the disparity between the fundamental drivers that he monitors, and the fundamentals I reported. He is right in thinking that demand for physical is not going ballistic yet.

Though as you will see in the graphs below, the fundamental price has indeed been rising since mid to late December (as I have been correctly reporting), from a low of around $1,115 to $1261 at the end of March.

The correct silver fundamental price is below the market price. My commentary actually stands up pretty well, in light of the correct data. Even while I erroneously reported a silver fundamental price running up to about $19, I have not been enthusiastic about silver. I haven’t “trusted” it enough to encourage a big silver trade, nor called for a major price move. I think there were two reasons.

One, obviously, the nearer-term contracts which I monitor are accurate. They did not show the kind of moves I would expect to see if the market for physical metal was getting so tight. The error only occurred for contracts in 2018. Two, the fundamental gold-silver ratio was correctly calling for a higher market ratio.

Below, I include graphs of the fundamental prices for both metals. The correct values will be overlaid with the ones I have been calculating. So you can see where it went off the rails, and by how far it deviated.

There is one last thing, which I am reluctant to discuss now, before we are ready to launch. Yet it is germane.

Monetary Metals has licensed market data from Thomson Reuters. When the new charts go live, they will be based solely on this data. This data is of better quality than the data from the real-time quote provider I have been using.

And we have developed some very sophisticated algorithms that allows us to extract the maximum signal with the least noise, far superior to what my little app does with the data from my current provider.

The new basis and fundamental prices will not line up perfectly with the old data series. One reason is that the bid-ask spread is tighter. By the nature of the math to calculate the basis, a tighter spread means a higher basis and higher co-basis.

That said, I am confident of two things. One, the new data is more accurate. And two, the old data set has served well in showing the big picture (notwithstanding the error I corrected this week).


Fundamental Developments

We will look at the only true picture of supply and demand in the gold and silver markets. But first, the price and ratio charts.


Prices of gold and silver – click to enlarge.


Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold-silver ratio. Last week, we asked if the downward-moving gold-silver ratio had hit a line of support. It seems it did, as it moved up sharply on Friday.


Gold-silver ratio – click to enlarge.


For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and co-basis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and co-basis in red.


Here is the gold graph.


Gold basis and co-basis and the dollar price – click to enlarge.


Not much change in the scarcity of gold (i.e. the red line, the cobasis) while the price moved up slightly. Our calculated fundamental price is up $30, to about $1,290.

Let’s take a look at two graphs. Both show enough time to see where the error began to creep in, and where it ends. They are May 3, 2016 through March 31, 2017.

The first is the continuous gold basis, with the erroneous line overlaid with the corrected line. As you can see, the erroneous basis was lower (indicating, falsely, lower abundance) and the erroneous co-basis was higher (indicated greater scarcity).


Reported and corrected gold basis and co-basis


The second is the market price of gold, overlaid with the erroneous and corrected fundamental prices.

The Reported and Corrected Gold Fundamental Prices


Gold: market price, reported fundamental price and corrected fundamental price – click to enlarge.


The erroneous one takes off for the stars. The corrected value is much closer to the market price, though a bit above.

Now let’s look at silver.


Silver basis and co-basis and the dollar price – click to enlarge.


We switched from the May to the July contract, as the May contract is in the process of being rolled (where traders must close positions in May and if they want to keep their positions, open a July or farther-out contract).

There is a small decrease in the basis and increase in co-basis, along with a falling price this week. And our fundamental price is up 14 cents, to just under $16.85. Yes, alas, that is more than a buck under the market.

Here are the same extra two graphs for silver.


Reported and corrected silver basis and co-basis – click to enlarge.


Silver: market price, reported fundamental price, corrected fundamental price – click to enlarge.


You can see here that there are two salient features. One, the fundamental price has been rising for about a month longer than that of gold, although from a much more volatile bottom ($12.39). Two, the fundamental price is way below the market price.


© 2017 Monetary Metals


Image captions by PT


Dr. Keith Weiner is the president of the Gold Standard Institute USA, and CEO of Monetary Metals. Keith is a leading authority in the areas of gold, money, and credit and has made important contributions to the development of trading techniques founded upon the analysis of bid-ask spreads. Keith is a sought after speaker and regularly writes on economics. He is an Objectivist, and has his PhD from the New Austrian School of Economics. He lives with his wife near Phoenix, Arizona.




Emigrate While You Can... Learn More




Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.


Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


5 Responses to “Mea Culpa – Precious Metals Supply and Demand”

  • All-Your-Gold-Are-Mine:

    Mr. Weiner, NO apology necessary… as readers, we’re not doing any of the work, just benefiting from your insights. Please excuse the arrogance of people thinking that you need an “accepted” apology. Of course you do not. And thank you for taking the time to explain in the first person. Personally, I like your writing style in the first person. Again, thanks for your hard work explaining your understanding of how the price of the precious metals, Gold and Silver, are derived.

  • Skew Views:

    When you say, ‘this new site goes a thousand times further’ is that number rounded up or down ? Because it seems hard to believe it will go exactly one thousand times further.
    You may want to double check that data as well. Maybe you meant to use the number 1000 instead.

    • All-Your-Gold-Are-Mine:

      Not funny “Skew” nor witty… why don’t YOU spend hours informing us of YOUR views, before acting like a “smart-*ss”?!

  • Riechers:

    Thank you for your honest disclosure, we all make mistakes, few take ownership. As a regular reader I had noticed the widening margin so appreciate the clarification. I can only imagine how many undisclosed errors live in the thousands of algos that control today’s markets that will never be revealed until it is too late.

  • Hans:

    Mr weiner, apology accepted!

    To ensure more reliable information, we are switching
    your servers to that of HRC; which will guaranty data flow
    from official sources.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • US Stock Market: Conspicuous Similarities with 1929, 1987 and Japan in 1990
      Stretched to the Limit There are good reasons to suspect that the bull market in US equities has been stretched to the limit. These include inter alia: high fundamental valuation levels, as e.g. illustrated by the Shiller P/E ratio (a.k.a. “CAPE”/ cyclically adjusted P/E); rising interest rates; and the maturity of the advance.   The end of an era - a little review of the mother of modern crash patterns, the 1929 debacle. In hindsight it is both a bit scary and sad, in...
  • A Giant Ouija Board - Precious Metals Supply and Demand Report
      Object of Speculation The prices of the metals fell last week, $22 and $0.24 respectively. It’s an odd thing, isn’t it? Each group of traders knows how gold “should” react to a particular type of news. But they all want the same thing — they want gold to go up. And when it doesn’t, many hesitate to buy. Or even sell. This is why speculation cannot set a stable price (I’m talking to you, bitcoiners).   Everybody wants gold to grow wings. Unfortunately it's rather...
  • How to Blow $12.2 Billion in No Time Flat
      Fake Responses  One month ago we asked: What kind of stock market purge is this?  Over the last 30 days the stock market’s offered plenty of fake responses.  Yet we’re still waiting for a clear answer.   As the party continues, the dance moves of the revelers are becoming ever more ominous. Are they still right in the head? Perhaps a little trepanation is called for to relieve those brain tensions a bit?  [PT]   The stock market, like the President,...
  • Purchasing Power Parity or Nominal Exchange Rates?
      Extracting Meaning from PPP   “An alternative exchange rate - the purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factor - is preferred because it reflects differences in price levels for both tradable and non-tradable goods and services and therefore provides a more meaningful comparison of real output.” – the World Bank   Headquarters of the World Bank in Washington. We have it on good authority that the business of ending poverty is quite lucrative for its practitioners...
  • Broken Promises
      Demanding More Debt Consumer debt, corporate debt, and government debt are all going up.  But that’s not all.  Margin debt – debt that investors borrow against their portfolio to buy more stocks – has hit a record of $642.8 billion.  What in the world are people thinking?   A blow-off in margin debt mirroring the blow-off in stock prices. Since February of 2016 alone it has soared by ~$170 billion - this is an entirely new level insanity. The current total of 643...
  • Stock and Bond Markets - The Augustine of Hippo Plea
      Lord, Grant us Chastity and Temperance... Just Not Yet! Most fund managers are in an unenviable situation nowadays (particularly if they have a long only mandate). On the one hand, they would love to get an opportunity to buy assets at reasonable prices. On the other hand, should asset prices actually return to levels that could be remotely termed “reasonable”, they would be saddled with staggering losses from their existing exposure. Or more precisely: their investors would be saddled...
  • Despondency in Silver-Land
      Speculators Throw the Towel Over the past several years we have seen a few amazing moves in futures positioning in a number of commodities, such as e.g. in crude oil, where the by far largest speculative long positions in history have been amassed. Over the past year it was silver's turn. In April 2017, large speculators had built up a record net long position of more than 103,000 contracts in silver futures with the metal trading at $18.30. At the end of February of this year, they held...
  • From Bling to Plonk – An Update on the Debt Mountain
      Serenely Grows the Debtberg We mentioned in a recent post that we would soon return to the topic of credit spreads and exotic structured products. One reason for doing so are the many surprises investors faced in the 2008 crisis. Readers may e.g. remember auction rate securities. These bonds were often listed as “cash equivalents” on the balance sheets of assorted companies investing in them, but it turned out they were anything but. Shareholders of many small and mid-sized companies...
  • US Equities – Mixed Signals Battling it Out
      A Warning Signal from Market Internals Readers may recall that we looked at various market internals after the sudden sell-offs in August 2015 and January 2016 in order to find out if any of them had provided clear  advance warning. One that did so was the SPX new highs/new lows percent index (HLP). Below is the latest update of this indicator.   HLP (uppermost panel) provided advance warning prior to the sell-offs of August 2015 and January 2016 by dipping noticeably below the...
  • Return of the Market Criers - Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Ballistically Yours One nearly-famous gold salesman blasted subscribers this week with, “Gold Is Going to Go Ballistic!” A numerologist shouted out the number $10,000. At the county fair this weekend, we ran out of pocket change, so we did not have a chance to see the Tarot Card reader to get a confirmation. The market criers are back in gold town [PT]   Even if you think that the price of gold is going to go a lot higher (which we do, by the way—but to lean on...
  • Good Riddance Lloyd Blankfein!
      One and the Same   “God gave me my money.” – John D. Rockefeller   Today we step away from the economy and markets and endeavor down the path less traveled.  For fun and for free, we wade out into a smelly peat bog.  There we scratch away the surface muck in search of what lies below.   One should actually be careful about quotes like the one attributed to Rockefeller above, even if it of course sounds good and is very suitable for the topic at...

Support Acting Man

Item Guides


Austrian Theory and Investment



THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from]


Buy Silver Now!
Buy Gold Now!

Diary of a Rogue Economist