Whilst I agree with what's expressed in the post, I'm surprised the 191 t wasn't picked up on recent weekness - the author identifies central banks as likely buyers on weekness, and it seemed we had that weekness, but no buying of IMF gold. There are some contradictions in there as well.

Why announce the sale publicly which is guaranteed to receive a lower price for the metal than if the IMF had just quietly sold the metal into the market. This is reminiscent of then Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s announcement that England intended to sell its hoard of gold. That guaranteed that Britain would receive the lowest price possible.

I'm sure he's right on the IMF intention of price surpression, but perhaps not the outcome. I've also read somewhere the IMF can only auction gold or sell to large buyers, rather than offer on the open market, so they have to announce an auction programme. Yeh, IMF would get best prices if they timed quietly, but can they? Brown's bottom was gold's bottom, and now we are a decade into a gold bull market, circumstances are different. IMF sales seem unlikely to get lower prices than say, occurred in Jan-Feb this year - if there's an auction, it might be a little lower around that week or something, but the suggestion of generally lower prices because of this doesn't seem likely for some time, if the situation carries on as is. So it wouldn't likely guarantee 'the lowest price possible' - it might do the oppsoite, as Jim Sinclair says ~

Maestro Jim Sinclair says that it is a repeat of the 1970s: ‘It will be no different this time around. Gold will rise because of IMF selling as it did in the 1970s.’

IMHO