Lord Gordon William Humphreys Richardson AKA Baron Richardson of Duntisbourne AKA Governor Richardson AKA ANOTHER

Note: The following is purely conjecture and is in no way meant to dishonor the memory of Lord Richardson who passed away in 2010.

Approximately one and a half years ago I came across the Thoughts! of ANOTHER. Up until that moment, I shared the "hard money socialist" views of many in the online precious metals community. I sincerely believed in the gold standard and even gave bimetallism consideration. However, if I may borrow from my friend Hedy Lamarr, since that moment my mind has been a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives. Essentially, I've become bizarro Steve Jobs:

FOFOA has stated that the words of Another (and FOA) are "the kind of inside information that never made it into the history books and still resides at the level of former Oil Ministers and National Security Advisors." That's pretty high on the pecking order. Kind of makes you wonder who they were, no? Well, this post will not delve into the subject matter of ANOTHER's thoughts or FOA's gold trail for that matter. However, it will in fact take their words nearly at face value, and from that perspective, I'll present my attempt to decipher their secret identities based on anecdotal and historical evidence. So, lets dive right in.

There are two clues as to ANOTHER's identity which significantly narrow the field of candidates. First and most important, ANOTHER was English. FOA told us so in his antepenultimate post. He was heated and anger driven in response to ORO's incoherent babble, or as FOA put it, the "words of a fool."

FOA:"I will say this for the record: Another is English and not Islamic!" -- Link

FOA's emotions got the best of him at that moment, and betrayed the location of ANOTHER's batcave, which may have ultimately influenced their final disappearance. In that same exchange, FOA reveals additional clues about himself, but I'll work back to that. The second important clue, and most obvious, is ANOTHER's clear connection with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and his personal knowledge of the top secret Saudi oil for gold trade.

The BIS is the clearing house for the central banks of the world. They deal in currency and gold, and operate out of this building in Basel, Switzerland:
Image taken from BIS.org

According to Edward Jay Epstein's fascinating 1983 article in Harpers Magazine, the "unabashed purpose of [the BIS's] elite monthly meetings is to coordinate and, if possible, to control all the monetary activities in the industrialized world." They are run by a highly secretive group, mostly composed of European central bank governors. An example of BIS secrecy: "In 1944, following Czech accusations that the BIS was laundering gold that the Nazis had stolen from occupied Europe, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS. The naive idea was that the settlement and monetary clearing functions it provided could be taken over by the new International Monetary Fund." Sounds like America needed Michael Fassbender on the case instead of the IMF... Bottom line - this is where the Saudi trade was initiated.

Epstein describes the hierarchy of the BIS: "artfully concealed within the shell of an international bank, like a series of Chinese boxes one inside another, are the real groups and services the central bankers need - and pay to support." There is the board of directors, high level committees, and the ultimate "chinese box called the Group of Ten or simply the 'G-10'."

As of 1983, right around the time of the Saudi's secret deal, the G-10 was composed of eleven (go Alex Smith! We saw this coming when we drafted you #1!) members "representing the eight European central banks, the U.S. Fed, the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Japan. It also has one unofficial member: the governor of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority." Wow! Epstein got the goods for this article. What separated membership in the ultimate Chinese box?

"The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments."

This is not an easy position to hold for an Englishman says Epstein, as the "Bank of England is under the thumb of the British government." But nevertheless, one Englishman was still admitted to this group. "Lord Richardson [BoE governor 1973-1983] was accepted by the inner club because of his personal adherence to this defining principle. But his successor, Robin Leigh-Pemberton, lacking the years of business and personal contact, probably won't be admitted to the inner circle."

So there you have it. There was one Englishman in the inner circle, and it was Lord Gordon Richardson, the former head of the Bank of England. Richardson's role at the BIS is confirmed on their website here. He served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors twice! From 1985-1988 and again from 1991-1993. I'm pretty sure number 2 is a member of the inner circle.

Of course this doesn't prove anything. But there is some additional evidence that leans in the direction of Lord Richardson being ANOTHER. Here is a link to a speech Lord Richardson gave to the house of Lords in 1987. A lengthy excerpt:

"In thinking about the solution I find that it is helpful if one can look at how the imbalances began. In my view they began in the divergent policies taken on the one hand by the United States and on the other hand by the other major industrial countries in the 1980s. The United States went for monetary contraction and massive fiscal expansion; the other industrial countries went for monetary restraint with a parallel fiscal restraint. I believe that the root of the imbalances lies in that divergence.

The growth of demand in the United States in the 1980s compared with its growth in the other developed countries has been dramatic. Demand grew at something like twice the rate in the United States through the 1980s compared with the other developed countries, and imports into the United States expanded almost two-and-a-half-times as fast as imports into other countries.

In those circumstances the budget deficit appeared, a trade gap yawned wide open and the United States, in order to supply the deficiency of its own domestic savings, sucked in savings from the rest of the world, where it is fair to say they were available partly by reason of the constrained fiscal policies being pursued in those other countries. But the scale of that sucking in of savings was enormous and the imbalances are there clear to see for everybody and they are unsustainable.

It is clear that the United States cannot go on calling on the rest of the world's savings at that rate to supplement its own deficiencies. It is clear too that a massive disequilibrium between the industrial countries cannot form the base for sustained growth and stability in the world. Beyond that, the disequilibrium between the economies has meant that we have had a switchback in the dollar, first rising to unsustainable levels and then subsequently having the possibility emerging of a downward correction of an excessive kind unless the appropriate policy measures are taken.


But the fact is that the United States has basic problems, and those basic problems are excessive consumption and inadequate domestic savings. They have been borrowing more than they save and they have been spending more than they produce. As a matter of analysis, that has to be corrected through an intermediate time-scale. The domestic savings gap, which has been running at something like 100 billion dollars in recent quarters, has to be closed in that time-scale.

Speaking again analytically that can only happen if for an extended period of time domestic consumption in the United States is below domestic production. In order to allow the trade flows to rebalance themselves room must be made for exports. On the other side complementary measures must be taken, and in the surplus countries domestic consumption has now got to exceed for a period of time domestic production. That is the only way in which the balance can be re-established."

That sounds familiar. Could be ANOTHER. But what else might there be? How about age? We know that ANOTHER was elderly, given the way he often spoke about the freegold transition taking place in "your lifetime" rather than his own. Lord Richardson passed away at the age of 94. That would place him at 81 when ANOTHER started posting in 1997. It is reasonable to assume that an 81 year old may not be as concerned with jeopardizing his positioning at the international table by posting top secret information on the internet. We know that Richardson was a veteran of WWII.

FOA: This person does not know me or my associates. Indeed, most of us let blood for this country in a war long gone...You are not part of the same country I served!

FOA is referring to America here, but it is fair to say the Allies bled for each other. Is he implying ANOTHER served as well? Could be. There is some other information that I have dug up which shows Richardson voicing concern over gold, but I think I've made a reasonable case. The key element that is missing is the FOA connection. Who is FOA and how did he become so close a confidant to ANOTHER? This is where my theory may split with others. I understand that many believe FOA to be American, but I think this could be misdirection.

FOA signed off in his penultimate post as "Sir Douglas, Your Trail Guide." I don't know many Americans that refer to themselves as Sir, but that's neither here nor there. What is here and there, is the man who served as Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury from 1974-1983 and UK Alternate Executive Director at the IMF from 1976 onward. One Sir Douglas Wass, born 1923, veteran of WWII, Princeton graduate, and distinguished British civil servant.

Coincidence? Maybe. But I wonder if the secretary of the treasury and the head of the central bank had much interaction over their coinciding ten year terms? Sir Douglas can still be found participating in lectures at the British Academy. He is 88. In 2008 he published a book titled "Decline to Fall: The Making of British Macro-Economic Policy and the 1976 IMF Crisis." Excerpts are available here.

I have yet to research Sir Douglas Wass' work more thoroughly.

So are Lord Gordon Richardson and Sir Douglas Wass ANOTHER and FOA? You tell me.


Special thanks to Screwtape Files for lending me the soapbox


2000 Flushes said...

If Another was the only Englishman on the G10, then FOA all but outed him. No, I think this was his misdirection. No Englishman writes like Another, unless Another was multilingual and posting transliterated French or something.

As for whether FOA is Douglas Wass - seems like time is running out for someone to ask him.

Warren James said...

Nice research RLP! I don't have much to add here but just wanted to chime in that the identity of this 'ultimate insider' is incredibly interesting.

@2000 flushes - I think you're on the right track with transliteration. Translating into another language and back (to serve as a mask) would be an easy mental exercise for someone of Another's stature.

Wendy said...


I don't think your analysis of the sir douglas thing is correct. I gave this some thought a couple of years ago. I came to think that the Sir Douglas thing was a handle/nic, liken to one of the knights of the round table.

I am certain that FOA is american. I suspect he was quite a bit younger than Another. In terms of Another's foreign-like presentation, I believe this was purposful. FOA edited Another's posts, and stated that at times they were almost indisernable .... I don't think it was a language issue, I think it was a security issue. Remember this was 1997 and computers were no where near the home appliance they have become.

I have my thoughts on the identity of FOA that I will keep to myself. I am positive that he is very much alive and entitled to his anonymity.

BTW when I posted that I thought Gordon Richardson was a person of interest, I did not state that I thought he might me Another.... unless you had made the connection/questions yourself you would have missed the post. However had you just posted the his name, I would have been all over it, having drawn the same conclusion ;)

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Hi 2000 Flushes,

You may well be correct, but I'm inclined to believe FOA was telling the truth given the emotional nature of his response to ORO. I also don't think it would be very difficult to disguise a writing style.

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Hi Wendy,

I found another tidbit which lends support to the Gordon Richardson case. He was a director for the Saudi International Bank during his tenure at Morgan Stanley and the BIS.

Why are you so sure FOA is American? I know he rambles on about hiking the trail in various parts of the American West, but these parts of his writing come off as incredibly contrived and forced to me. He is probably a big fan of old Westerns.

And why do you think he is so much younger that ANOTHER?

Max De Niro said...

If FOA was/is English, but writing as an American, then I feel fairly certain, that a slip up in spelling or phraseology would have occured somewhere amongst his considerable posts.

This could be an interesting project for someone. Of course, if no slip up is found, it proves nothing, but the odd one here or there could be very telling.

Also, with regard to the book written by Sir Douglas Wass. It was written in 2008. He has written one other book, a short 144 pages on efficiency and responsiveness of British government, written in 1983.

If he were FOA, and he were to write two books, given his obvious knowledge and inclinations, and magnitude of the importance of subject matter he discussed on USAGold, would he have chosen these two topics for the officially printed words that he would leave behind to the world?

I haven't read either, so perhaps the latest one is laced with devilishly clever oblique hints at a coming freegold world, but without that information I couldn't possibly say.

There's my rambling and pointless 0.02

Dr. Peter T said...

This conjecture is miles off. I have never before seen an evaluation so full of such enormous holes. I won't waste my time pointing out all the blatantly obvious errors in this piece, since they will be so startlingly evident to anyone who has read Another and FOA. And after all, it is their message and wisdom we value and for which we are grateful! Their identity is, frankly, immaterial.

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Thanks for this input Peter! I like your contributions over at Fofoa as well! Oh wait...

Maybe you didn't notice where I said it was all pure conjecture based on taking FOA's "ANOTHER was English" comment at face value.

You probably wouldn't have noticed that though because you have nothing to contribute.

Robert LeRoy Parker said...


FOA may well have been American. Most long time contributers at FOFOA think so.

However, if ANOTHER was English, I believe Gordon Richardson is a strong candidate.

That makes Sir Douglas Wass an interesting coincidence.

Wendy said...


I really can't tell you why I've concluded FOA is american. Over the last 5 years I've read much of what he contributed . and re-read much of that, and mosty I don't remember the details. However without solid ground to defend my position, I still believe he is American

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

No worries Wendy.

This first blog attempt was more a stab at guessint ANOTHER's identity. In the end, it's simply conjecture based on a few interesting tidbits and articles.

Dr. Peter T said...

Hi, i refer you to the second word in my post, which clearly invalidates your ridiculous contention.
I'm amused that you consider this piece of speculative, ill-informed trash to be a 'contribution'. It is merely the product of an intensely narrow-minded, and self-deluded individual.
Yes, my comments at Fofoa are indeed in no way designed to 'contribute' (as you put it)anything other than my gratitude to and respect for the clarity and well-reasoned argument put forward by the author (something you might profitably spend some time working on). For my part, I have no interest, nor emotional need, to seek to add to the wisdoms contained in Fofoa's blog. It is enough for me to read the thoughts of those three great minds.
I have sometimes read some of the comments that follow Fofoa's blogs. Only a few make any true 'contribution' and in any way add insight and wisdom. The vast majority is nothing but the ridiculous ramblings of intellectual lightweights.
I'm glad you believe that you are making a 'contribution', that the meaningless, spurious and wholly absurd drivel you have produced constitutes a 'contribution'. A wave of hilarity sweeps your readers.

Warren James said...

'Intellectual lightweights'? Great dialogue. We (the unwashed masses) have a right to inquire and test ANYTHING we choose to. No harm done, and no need for nastiness.

Dr. Peter T said...

And when you invite readers to consider your enquiries and tests, you might accept their reflections without provocative responses which fail to address the reader's reflections and engage instead in affronted-author petulance.
Yes, this article is quite clearly conjecture. But it is more. It is conjecture which lacks any intelligent thought. The evaluations and links it makes are blatantly beyond tenuous; they are so clearly so utterly wide of the mark, that the piece can no longer be considered conjecture, but rather abject stupidity. Such utter nonsense can not offer a blanket-defence that it's just little 'ol conjecture.
The transliteration concept is similarly ill-conceived and poorly thought through. How would that account for the sudden alarming lapse in Another's spelling of many quite simple English words? Moreover, it would not account for Another's idiomatic language use. It is here -in Another's idioms- that his nationality can be uncovered. And many have done so. Quite why it is necessary to do so is another matter. I think we are privileged enough to have found his work, and been able to share in his knowledge and wisdom. His value is there, in his words.
No need for you to be so sensitive about your personal hygiene. Intellectual lightweights? Yup, so far aint seen a thing to make me change my view on that.

Warren James said...

I'll wear that (re: my transliteration comment). Thanks for the elucidation - those are good observations.

Warren James said...

(not the insults of course, but the rest was good)

mortymer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KJ said...

Thanks RLP, this identity issue is intriguing no? Everyone at some point wonders who they really are/were...to some, it is not important to know while others would love to know. Most in both groups likely did find this write up interesting and for those in the latter group, particularly interesting. I'm actually in Peter's camp but only in the sense that it does not matter to me who these individual's were/are but only their message is relevant as brilliantly simplified by FOFOA. Peter asks why it is necessary to attempt to uncover their identities. I'm not an intellectual heavyweight or even lightweight for that matter, but perhaps the answer is as simple as: it's human nature.

RLP, you may or may not uncover any/some truth, but best of luck on your journey, wherever it takes ya :)

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Hey Peter,

Feel free to ignore my abject stupidity.

Hi KJ,

I respectfully disagree that it doesn't matter who they are/were.

Imo, anonymity is a problem with respects to freegold. It helps prevent the idea from being discussed more openly by more people well qualified to analyze economic models and consequences. If freegold truly is the desire of the Euro block, why is there no public discourse about citizens saving in gold? Where is the gold discussion in European Academia? If all paper is truly going to burn, the amount of suffering which will result in the process will be truly breathtaking and devastating. Is it fair to railroad so many billions when perhaps there are alternative methods of arrival? Maybe the possible devastation is why the transition hasn't taken place 10 years after Foa left. Maybe the lbma has been saved in that time.

If freegold is a better system than the dollar reserve, which I think it is, why should economists be afraid to talk about it without the cloak of anonymity? Ideas with such massive implications should be discussed widely imho, and not only at the fringes of the internet.

Additionally, to this day I am not aware of any historical documents which provide any sort of proof regarding the Saudi oil for gold trade. The entire argument of physical gold being cornered and the lbma awash in paper is predicated on that trade. Hashing out who Another and Foa were might lead to some clues regarding the validity of their claim rather than simply waiting for years on end for their return or a freegold transition. It might also increase the discussion beyond Fofoa's blog.

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Hi Mortymer,

No apologies necessary. Keep up the great research. You've found some really great nuggets lately.

Brian O'Flanagan said...

RLP, I agree. The identities of Another and FOA are of great interest to many people. You may be wrong, but it is a discussion worth having. And if someone thinks RLP is far off the mark, then who else could they be, and why?

Max De Niro said...

The "Dr" in Peter's handle and his loose swinging of the "intellectual lightweight" dead cat bolas give a sumptuously voyeuristic glimpse into his character.

It makes my day when I come across posts like that on the internet. Others' intellectual snobbery makes me feel all warm and cozy on the inside.

mortymer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mortymer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Thank you mortymer.

I find your blog immensely useful. At some point I will do a follow up post with a wide range of possible ANOTHER candidates after I try to connect the dots further.

Perhaps he will come back on his own accord at some point.

Warren James said...

Whenever I visit FOFOA's site I feel like a kid in a candy store - there are many nuggets of wisdom just sitting on the ground. I feel compelled to share this one from VictorTheCleaner as it relates to 'Another's motives for writing. For some reason the blogger link direct to the comment is not working (but the page is here), so although I don't like wholesale copy & paste, I just want to preserve the comment here since I think is relevant to the investigation.

A background on this - VictorTheCleaner has been refining an interpretation of the US having an interest in keeping oil prices HIGH (which is well described in another of his recent comments, which I hope he compiles into a post on his blog), and in my view he is hot on the trail.

Here is what Victor wrote about the identity of Another. I like it because it introduces a human element as well as international shenanigans/mystery/intrigue [I have ignored the heated emotions on the FOFOA thread].

[VictorTheCleaner] ... You fail to explain why Another posted the inside information, and why he did so on North American websites (first Kitco, then USA Gold). Just to help some American goldbugs secure their savings before the grand reset? Dream on!

He was a traitor. He gave the BIS' master plan away so the US could start working on fixing things before it got totally out of hand. I don't know what exactly happened in 2001, but the Saudis did eventually not demand Euros for their oil.

And sure, Another was upset that the Chinese were let in - which contributed to eventually blowing up the scheme. He knew only a part of it which was enough to make him worry. He may even have used FOA. FOA was perhaps just fascinated by the end-of-the-dollar story and the architecture of the new gold based system. That part was real, and FOA delivered and explained it in a fantastic way.

You see, I turned around only one assumption: That the US were not interested in cheap oil, but rather in expensive oil. This leads to some reshuffling of the main actors and a slight regrouping of the different camps.

Now you need to decide which point of view explains more.

How do you explain
* why Another started posting
* why the ECB/BIS never publicly advertised the new role of gold in the Euro architecture - it is completely off the record to this date
* why the Chinese were let in - if you want to switch international trade to gold clearing, everyone of the major blocks needs some healthy initial balance, otherwise they don't subscribe
* which side the Saudis are on?


I also want to say I'm impressed at Turd Ferguson for posting a FOFOA link on his blog. I think the 'expensive oil' theory can help explain some of the recent posturing around Iran (this was put forward by Victor in another comment). That I would like it Mortymer, if you were able to reopen your blog.

Wendy said...


I thought you might find this little quote from FOA interesting:

FOA (08/17/99; 12:16:06MDT - Msg ID:11339)
…………………. Several months ago and some $20 higher I said that gold would go no lower and physical would become hard to obtain in quantity. I was wrong on the price because I did not fully understand Another's post. Later he pointed out that the actual process of this market failing would
bring on the discounting of paper gold against physical. I didn't believe it at first, but he has to know, he's in the middle of it."

It's the "he's in the middle of it" that I find interesting.

Wendy said...


I had posted an explanation, but it appears to have gotton lost in the blog-sphere.

It was this quote that really started my thinking. Another talked BIS, BIS and BIS. I suspected the "middle of it" was the BIS.

I searched for someone who was English, quite old, served in the war, and in the "middle" of the BIS. Richardson was the only name that fit.

That he was a director for the Saudi International Bank during his tenure at Morgan Stanley and the BIS confirms my resolve.

Hey I might be way off, but I can't help but be curious.

somanyroadsinvesting said...

Thanks for the post. I appreciate the research. I have been making my way through the Another trail forums recently. Very good insight into the intl macro econ scene. Just what I have been looking for. Not some high theory all these econ books discuss.

Side note: I dont get why all these freegold guys seem to be somewhat arrogant and rude to people on the net. I notice it a lot on the FOFOA comments section. Seems like they think they are smarter than everyone else.

All I know in my experience when you think you have figured it all out and know more than everyone then its time to check back into reality. Also just does not seem like a fun way to live, constantly bad mouthing and insulting people.

Gary said...

Interesting stuff.

I found some stuff abour the Bellagio group, forerunner to the G30 (of which Richardson was Chair).

Some names from a document I found on the Bellagio group that were effectively advocating quasi-freegold (called a semi-automatic gold standard in the document):

Semi-automatic gold
Raise the price of gold to
allow the removal
(redemption) of all reservecurrencies
from the system.
Leave gold as sole reserve
asset. Fix exchange rates.
Eliminate payments
Removal of reserve
currencies and increase in
gold price raise liquidity and
Pierre Dieterlen, Albert Hahn,
Sir Roy Harrod, Michael
Heilperin, Jacques Rueff ,
Walter Salant, Charles

Also, have a look at the G30 description on wikipedia, it says:

'The group is noted for its advocacy of changes in global clearing and settlement.'

Here's the Bellagio paper:


Richardosn wasn't involved in Bellagio it seems. But heavily involved in the G30, which is interesting.

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

Randomly clicking around the Kitco archives I found this:

Date: Mon Jan 19 1998 15:46
EB (Lunchtime w/ kitco......my afternoon soap.....ohmy.) ID#22956:

Another is English....and who cares anyway...right bb?

Now I need to figure out the context and if it is anything.

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

So that info appears to be useless. I found reference to Another being called Japanese, Scottish, Nigerian, a Saudi Royal, etc in the last hour or so. If he is alive I doubt he is ever coming back.

Warren James said...

'ever coming back', as in .. 'cares much to confirm the historical record'?

I'm surprised that Another has not stopped by to affirm or compliment the work of FOFOA. With so many words and hours dedicated to the tribute he should have showed up at least once.

Or maybe he is there, old and bitter and twisted, playing devil's advocate.

I am interested in the human side of the guy, it's a shame that we don't have a window into that world. It seems to me that we could honour his passing a lot more if we had known who he was.

Good on you for looking in the newly revealed forum archives.

Warren James said...

Oh, I see Victor is digging into those kitco archives too :)



mr pinnion said...

Hi Warren,

I agree Victors comment is indeed interesting because of the reasons you stated.

I ,however dont think any of it passes the logic test.

"He was a traitor. He gave the BIS' master plan away so the US could start working on fixing things before it got totally out of hand."

What? If we believe FOFOA, the 'plan' was about thirty years old at the time Another started posting. Good job the Yanks nipped it in the bud , a?
Assuming Another was a high up insider (which is a bloody big assume), why would he bugger about on an obscure internet forum, blabbing to a load of gold buggs about the plan? Surely theres more professional ways to go about traitoring.

Have you seen the film, The Good Shepherd? Well its about spying, and if its anywhere near the truth about what goes on in such circles, we can be sure the US knew about the 'plan' ucking decades ago.

Anothers nationality isnt important to me.Whether he was an insider or just some good story teller dude is the inportant thing.
His motivations matter a lot to me.
If he was as high up an insider as FOFOA thinks, why would he post the information he did on a public forum?
Would he av been allowed to post such information on the net?
Did he post because he wanted to do people a favour and let them keep their wealth after the reset?
If so, why not post the information where more of the public would be likely to see it?
If he was this kind hearted dude trying to save peoples money, why did he stop posting?

The time he stopped posting is interesting to me.Not long after(months) China where let in the WTO then about a year or so after they ramped up their buying of US debt.
Coincidence? I think not.

OK.If he s such a big insider, chances are he would have got wind of the China WTO thing in the pipeline.He puts 2 and 2 together and sees that China could replace Europes buying power.He also susses out that this could delay Freegold for donkeys years.What is a guy to do in that position?Carry on posting for X amount of years taking flack all the way?
He could av fessed up and said he was a bit/10+ years premature.Then he would av got loads of abuse and ridicule on the forum, which is not good.
Soo, he decides the best option is to pretend to be all offended at a post by some dick, and fade away graciously.

That begs the question , where is he now?
Well he s probably retired by now, with lots of time on his hands.After watching and waiting all those years , he probably got all exited during the credit crunch and thought,"at last , this is it"!
And maybe he set up a blog to start warning people again, being such a nice bloke and all.
Who knows?

Feel free to pick apart my near perfect observations.


Warren James said...

Oh gee Ozzy, now you got me interested again just when I thought it had all been put to rest.

I find FOFOA's latest comment (specifically about the identity of the posters on the kitco forums) specifically interesting (link), provides good contextual background but also a lot more questions, not easily answered, such as what motivations were present that lead to the 'imposters'.

I share your curiosity on your list of questions. If there's one thing I've learnt over the last few years, then it's that building a financial strategy based on anonymous internet writers, is a really bad one. Deep Wisdom Notwithstanding, I suppose I am kidding myself that I think that Another should be an exception to that rule (flame away, anyone).

p.s. I've quizzed FOFOA on whether he is, knew, or had contact with Another or FOA. He says no, and I believe him. He seems to be like most of us here 'deeply rattled by 2008 enough to stop and take a deeper look under the bonnet of world finance for the first time' (we need a special name for that collective).

I don't have any answers, but I'll see what I can do to get a resting place for these concerns which are still bubbling away. --Warren

Robert LeRoy Parker said...

The kitco archives are pretty hard to decipher. There appears to be words from two sources mixed into posts from Big Trader which doesn't help. Is "Another Hand" Another? And what of GFD who is in correspondence with Big Trader via email?

Big Trader appears to be Chinese and somehow affiliated with the Chinese central bank, yet in a non-official capacity.

This really makes me question whether or not Another actually was an insider or not. But FOA did say that Another was "right in the middle of it," so who the hell knows. It could have been a Tyler Durden situation for all I know.

Blondie made a good point the other day about the necessity of opaqueness if indeed the words are true. However, that makes me lean towards Desperado's view that central bankers are not very interested in looking out for the laymen.

Hyperinflation is something that should be avoided at all costs imo.

Victor The Cleaner said...


have you considered the possibility that the USG might favour HI over other outcomes?

Jim Rickards might in fact be more right than he could dream of when he writes

Hyperinflation produces fairly predictable sets of winners and losers and prompts certain behaviours and therefore can be used politically to rearrange social and economic relations among debtors, creditors, labour and capital, while gold is kept available to clean up the wreckage if necessary.