Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If they don't want to push down the prices with excess supply, they'd have to sell very slowly. Like France did.


If they're buying the same amount elsewhere then the buy pressure equals the sell pressure, might make an arb opportunity across the currencies


> the buy pressure equals the sell pressure, might make an arb opportunity across the currencies

The arb means you’re still suffering a price difference. You’re just paying “the market” to solve it for you.


Yes, you're paying arbitrage instead of shipping fees. Which is not unreasonable for commodity markets with different settlement locations.


Yeah and in theory they should be equal.


> in theory they should be equal

Related. Not equal.


No, equal. If the profit gained from buying/selling gold in New York and doing the opposite in London is not equal to the cost of physically transporting the gold across the Atlantic then there is and arbitrage opportunity and in a perfect market it would be eliminated until those costs are exactly equal.

In reality markets aren't perfect, and also you'd have to take into account the benefit that doing things digitally is much faster, so it won't actually be equal. But in the magic world that economists live in it should be.


I can see that gold settled in London is worth more than gold settled in NYC given trust in both nations right now.


Compared with the logistics of moving that much gold safely, "moving" it by selling it and buying the equivalent in less fraught location need not be that much slower.


Would buying and then selling work? Or is the market simply not liquid enough for such a strategy?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: