Analysts at Goldman Sachs assert, “We strongly believe in the diversifying role of commodities in investment portfolios based on several structural drivers, including commodities’ hedging role against supply disruptions, not an uncommon occurrence in energy, and the potential for sharp rallies in select industrial metals driven by a combination of long supply cycles and structural green metals demand growth associated with energy security and decarbonization investment.”

Despite this belief, the firm has decided to recalibrate its strategies in light of a softening cyclical environment. “However, given the current softening cyclical environment, we opt to tactically close our 2024 Deficits Basket trading recommendation with a potential gain of 8% and focus on our highest conviction views in the current environment, namely higher implied oil volatility, long gold and short long-dated European gas,” the analysts noted.

The surge in gold purchases by central banks has been remarkable, with the Kobeissi Letter reporting, “Global net gold purchases by central banks reached 483 tonnes in the first half of 2024, the most on record.” This figure represents a 5% increase over the previous record of 460 tonnes set in the first half of 2023.

In the second quarter of 2024, central banks acquired 183 tonnes of gold, reflecting a 6% year-over-year increase, although this was 39% lower than the 300 tonnes purchased in the first quarter, as highlighted by the Kobeissi Letter.

Goldman Sachs remains optimistic about gold’s prospects, stating, “Gold stands out as the commodity where we have the highest confidence in near-term upside.” The firm has set a bullish target of $2,700 per ounce for early 2025, driven by three key factors.

First, the analysts believe that “the tripling in central bank purchases since mid-2022 on fears about US financial sanctions and US sovereign debt is structural and will continue, reported or unreported.”

Second, they anticipate that “imminent Fed rate cuts are poised to bring Western capital back into the gold market, a component largely absent of the sharp gold rally observed in the last two years.”

Finally, they emphasize that “gold offers significant hedging value to portfolios against geopolitical shocks including tariffs, Fed subordination risk, and debt fears.”

Their analysis suggests a potential upside of 15% in gold prices should financial sanctions rise similarly to the increases seen since 2021, or if US CDS spreads widen by one basis point. “That said, due to the particularly price-sensitive Chinese market digesting the recent price rally, we have adjusted our $2,700 target to early 2025 vs year-end 2024 previously. However, we believe that that same price sensitivity also insures against hypothetical large price declines, which would likely reinvigorate Chinese buying,” the analysts added.

The Kobeissi Letter raises an intriguing question: “Why are central banks calling for a ‘soft landing’ while stocking up on gold?”

As Goldman Sachs maintains its bullish outlook for gold into late 2024 and early 2025, the ongoing demand from central banks is expected to further bolster prices. However, the yellow metal must navigate through September, historically a challenging month since 2016.

With governments around the globe continuing to print debt at unprecedented levels, the prospects for gold remain strong. “But with governments worldwide continuing to print debt like there is no tomorrow, there’s a strong chance that the strength shown by gold in the first half of 2024 will continue in the second half and beyond as the primary result of debt printing is currency debasement,” the Kobeissi Letter concludes.

As the economic landscape evolves, gold’s role as a protective asset appears more critical than ever.

The Delaware-registered firm, Flannery Associates LLC, has spent nearly $1 billion purchasing more than 50,000 acres of land surrounding Travis Air Force Base since 2018, public records show. California Forever is the parent company of Flannery Associates, according to its new website.

It was founded in 2017 by CEO Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader, and is backed by billionaires including Marc Andreessen and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

“Over the last few years, Flannery has purchased over 50,000 acres in Solano County. To date, our company has been quiet about our activities. This has, understandably, created interest, concern, and speculation,” the website states. “Now that we’re no longer limited by confidentiality, we are eager to begin a conversation about the future of Solano County a conversation with all of you.”

The website goes on to state that Solano County, like much of California, “faces many challenges, but also possesses countless opportunities.”

Over the past few years, California Forever has completed surveys and interviews with about 2,000 residents of Solano County—located between Sacramento, San Francisco, and Napa Valley, with a population of about 450,000—and their voices, according to the company, “were clear.”

“Residents want more opportunities to buy homes in safe, walkable communities. Good paying local jobs, so they can both live and work in the county,” the website states. “Better funding to improve schools, promote public safety, and reduce homelessness, as well as resources to invest in infrastructure for transportation, water, and wildfire protection.”

That is why, according to California Forever, it has raised capital from a string of investors including Mr. Andreessen and California investment firm Andreessen Horowitz, and Ms. Jobs, as well as Patrick and John Collison, Chris Dixon, John Doerr, Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, Reid Hoffman, and Michael Moritz, to build the new community.

‘Walkable Neighborhoods,’ Solar Farms

Those investors share the firm’s “long-term vision and belief that California’s best days are still ahead,” and are “committed to Solano and this project for the long term.”
The community will include homes, shopping, dining and schools, all within “walkable neighborhoods,” as well as solar farms and “open space,” including both “agriculture and habitat conservation,” according to the website.

It will also attract new employers, create well-paying local jobs, lead in “environment stewardship,” and fuel a “growing tax base to serve the county at large.”

Finally, the project would “protect and support” Travis Air Force Base, including by respecting Solano County’s official Travis Reserve Area, according to the company. The website comes as lawmakers have raised concerns over Flannery Associates LLC.

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), whose district includes Solano County, said he met with two representatives from the company in late August to ask questions about their plans but that it was clear following the meeting that they “don’t have a plan; they have a vision.”

“The secrecy under which they operated caused consternation and concern from residents, local elected officials, and federal agencies, and while they explained their rationale, I do not believe the secrecy was necessary,” the lawmaker said in a statement.

“Solano County is a tight-knit community, and it is going to be a long road for Flannery to restore trust and move forward with their proposed vision. As one of the representatives of Solano County, I want to make sure that a group of Silicon Valley billionaires do not steal family farmers’ ability to farm their land.”

The lawsuit accuses the farmers, including Barnes Family Ranch Associates LLC and Kirby Hill Associates LLC, of conspiring to inflate the price of real estate by hundreds of millions of dollars and overcharging the company, allegedly in violation of U.S. antitrust law.

Litigation in the case remains ongoing.

Mr. Thompson, following his Aug. 29 meeting, cited additional concerns such as national security and food security, noting that a “development of the magnitude they are proposed could harm Travis Air Force Base in the long term.”

“They need to make sure that nothing they do harms Travis, puts our national security at risk, or disadvantages family farmers,” he said.

Other lawmakers including Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) have raised concerns over the plans, claiming some of the families who sold the land to the company did not want to sell to Flannery, but were persuaded with large sums of money.

Many of the families, according to Mr. Garamendi, cannot afford legal representation in the ongoing lawsuit.

Despite those concerns, California Forever insists the new project is the start of a “decades-long collaboration with Solano’s residents, elected officials and agencies, as well as the many Solano stakeholders, including Travis Air Force Base, labor, business, agriculture, educators, police, fire, conservation, and many others.”

“This is a project that must be not just designed with, but also approved by, all Solano residents,” the website states.

Masooma Haq contributed to this report. Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

After attracting more than $1 billion worth of deposits in the first four days of launch, Apple has apparently restricted withdrawals and transfers. One man named Nathan Thacker, who lives outside of Atlanta, told The Wall Street Journal that he has continually tried but failed to transfer $1,700 from his Apple account to his JPMorgan Chase account.

Thacker tried to contact Goldman Sachs numerous times about the issue, only to be told to wait a few days for things to clear. It wasn’t until The Wall Street Journal intervened on Thacker’s behalf that he was finally able to access his own cash on demand.

Another man named Kevin Smyth, from Minnesota, expressed similar complaints but directly to Apple CEO Tim Cook via Twitter. He asked: “Was your plan to partner with a bank that holds people’s life savings hostage?”

In Smyth’s case, he had been trying to transfer $10,000 from his Apple account to U.S. Bank ever since May 16. When he was finally successful after a lengthy battle with Apple and Goldman Sachs, Smyth drained his entire $200,000 life savings from Apple and moved it back to American Express.

(Related: During covid, Apple announced that it would be funneling a $100 million “racial justice” donation to anti-white terrorists.)

Goldman Sachs says holding Apple savings customers’ money hostage “has been excellent and beyond our expectations”

All over social media, Apple savings customers are fuming about similar withdrawal and transfer problems. The common thread seems to be that Apple and Goldman Sachs are more than able to take your cash, but for whatever reason are unable to give it back when you ask for it.

“Do not set up direct deposit using savings account by Apple,” one angry customer wrote. “You may not see that money for 3-4 weeks based on my experience. Let them have the nickels and dimes and nothing else.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that some Apple savings customers are seeing their money vanish upon initiating a transfer, but never making it to the directed bank account.

According to Goldman Sachs, only a “limited” number of Apple customers are experiencing these “glitches,” which as usual harm the customer while benefiting Big Banks and Big Tech.

Apple baited people into the scam by promising them a 4.15 percent annual yield, which is much higher than the standard interest rate offered by mainstream banks. It also dangled claims of fee-free banking and unlimited withdrawals as a lure.

Once customers fall for the trick, it becomes a battle and waiting game to get their money back from these usurious predators. Apple and Goldman Sachs, it turns out, are two of the most evil, greedy corporations on the planet.

In a statement, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs gaslit the public by insisting that everything is going not only smoothly but much better than corporate executives ever could have expected.

“The customer response to the new Savings account for Apple Card users has been excellent and beyond our expectations,” the spokesman said. “While the vast majority of customers see no delays in transferring their funds, in a limited number of cases, a user may experience a delayed transfer due to processes in place designed to help protect their accounts.”

“While we would not comment on specific customer interactions, we take our obligation to protect our customers deposits very seriously and work to create a balance between a seamless customer experience and that protection.”

The latest news about Apple can be found at Evil.news.

Sources for this article include:

• DailyMail.co.uk
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

Earlier, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had said that the X-date—the date when the United States will be unable to pay its bills and thus risk a default—could be June 1. However, Phillips estimates that the X-date will come later. The X-date “could be June 1. It also could be June 8th or 9th. And it also could be, probably not, sometime in July. So, our guess right now is that the real deadline is probably more like June 8th or 9th. That’s when they are at sort of greatest risk,” he said in a May 19 interview with Bloomberg.

“The reality is Congress has to do this (raising the debt ceiling) at some point very soon, and they should just go ahead and do it. So, waiting for the last minute isn’t necessarily the right move, even though we think that maybe they could go a little bit longer.”

Phillips also pointed to the possibility of rating agencies downgrading the United States. In an April 25 post, Fitch said, “If, ahead of the X-date, we were to assess the risk of a default as having become more material, the US’s rating would likely be placed on Rating Watch Negative and further rating action could be considered.”

However, if the debt limit were not raised or suspended in time to prevent a default, Fitch would move the U.S. ratings to Restricted Default (RD).

“Affected Treasury securities would carry a ‘D’ rating until the default was cured. Prioritizing debt payments to avoid an immediate default, if this were possible, might not be consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating.”

Phillips says the odds of a ratings downgrade are “pretty low” as he believes the chances of the United States missing any payment are low.

Treasury Cash Balance

The cash balance at the U.S. Treasury has drastically fallen in just a week. On May 11, the treasury’s closing cash balance stood at $143.31 billion. A week later, on May 18, the cash balance dropped to $57.34 billion, a decline of almost 60 percent.

“The US Treasury has $57 billion in cash on hand while the government carries $31 trillion in debt. That’s the equivalent of an average person having $1,000 in cash on hand and $543,859 in debt. Scary,” Grit Capital CEO Genevieve Roch-Decter said in a May 21 tweet.

Regarding the issue, Phillips predicted that the Treasury might run down its cash balance to near zero by the time lawmakers decide to raise the debt ceiling. The Treasury could then issue $500 billion–$600 billion worth of bills over a few weeks.

“The concern is that … that is going to pull money out of other places and put it on the Fed’s balance sheet where it’s not being invested in equities or whatever else. I think it is something to keep an eye on,” he said.

Political Gridlock Over Raising Debt Ceiling

With only a few weeks remaining before the X-date arrives, Republican and Democrat lawmakers have yet to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling. On May 21, House Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and President Joe Biden discussed the issue on the phone.

The two are set to meet on May 22 to further discuss raising the debt ceiling. McCarthy and Republicans want the Biden administration to implement spending cuts and increase the defense budget. Biden has indicated that he is open to making the spending cuts.

Some Senate Democrats have asked Biden to invoke the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment to prevent a debt default.

However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the president on May 19, warning that attempting to invoke the 14th Amendment powers would be “as economically calamitous as a default triggered by a failure to lift the debt limit in a timely manner.”

“The Constitution is clear. The power to ‘borrow money on the credit of the United States’ is given to Congress (Article 1, Section 8) and not the Executive,” the letter stated.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.