Interesting pronouncement from JS indeed. In my own read of things there must exist an agreement for western sovereigns to hold gold within a range while China positions its holding for an "equitable" future status in a global economy in which hard reserves will play a part. In return China agreed to not shock the sovereign debt/bond markets. That is just a guess at the plausible, but I do see that gold became tied into the range-bound behavior at about the time of Geithner's visit to China Jan 2012, that the peak of gold ended approx at the time that China was granted direct-bidder status to buy US Treasuries from the US gov without intermediary (announced in June 2011). That any such "agreement" would have been roughly term-limited by the known change (China) and potential change (US) in government leadership and policy (China for sure new 10 yr plan, US potential via elections) would make sense. Also, with the political climate relaxed sufficiently that the Fed was able to move into unlimited QE the pressure to keep the Treasury market from becoming illiquid is relieved for now. <br /> etc. etc. etc. Point being I see nothing to contradict what JS is proclaiming in that piece, but there may be some indicators supporting it.