DaveFor days, the story was, George Soros is selling gold.  And then it came out later that he had already sold his gold by the time news hit the streets. 

The significance is this.  While George was selling, the markets were actually rising.  And, by the time reports leaked that George was selling, the markets had already begun to tip over.  I wouldn't be surprised if we read in another month or two that George only sold a portion of his gold and in fact had begun to buy more as prices dipped.

Ask yourself a couple simple questions.  Why did copper go down when George Soros sold off his gold?  Why did oil drop 15%?  Why did cotton prices fall?  Do you really believe the entire commodities sector fell because George Soros sold gold?

While the news will spin the act of selling as negative for gold, let me put a different spin on it.  Most publicized was George's sale of 4.7 million shares of SPDR Gold Trust.  That suggests SPDR sold some corresponding amount of its gold holdings to enable the transaction.  So, why not call it a buy instead of a sale? 

Something similar occurred in November of 2009 when an announcement was made that the IMF sold 200 metric tonnes of Gold to India.  Prior to the actual sale, it was feared that once the sale occurred, gold prices would be driven lower.  You know, that more-gold-supply- than-demand argument.  That was the spin.  However, once the sale was announced, gold prices rose 13% in less than 30 days.  So, you tell me.  Was that a buy or a sell?

The bottom line is this.  Whatever George Soros did with 10 or 15 tonnes of gold is still pittance to what takes place in the global gold market.  To suggest things as wild as this is a signal that the gold bull market is over and the bubble has burst, is just laughable.  If the bubble has indeed burst, I feel pretty strongly, whatever George Soros did along the way had little to do with it.