Nov 23

But it might just create a chance to Buy Gold and other hard assets on the cheap…

WELL THIS should be interesting, writes Dan Denning in his Daily Reckoning Australia.

The EU/IMF bailout of Ireland is not going off without a hitch. The UK’s Telegraph reports that the Green party, which currently forms the junior half of Ireland’s coalition, might withdraw that support and call for new elections in January. This would call into doubt the ability of the current government not only to execute a deal with the EU and the IMF but also to pursue its four-year austerity program.

What a mess! We’ll get to how Ireland and Australia are similar in a moment. But first, please recall the words of the great philosopher of the New York Yankees, Yogi Berra. He once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Today’s fork in the financial road leads down two different paths. One path is continued US Dollar devaluation and a strategic migration to emerging market assets (under the assumption that the BRIICS nations will eventually have to allow for currency appreciation…or face rampant food and fuel inflation). This trade favors Buying Gold, commodities, and tangible assets in general.

But remember what happened in 2008? The Global Financial Crisis actually led to a massive rally in the US Dollar. Emerging markets got hammered. The "risk" trades financed with cheap greenbacks were reversed and commodities took a shellacking as well.

Could that happen again? The boys at Knight Research think it’s going to happen again, but even bigger and badder this time around. In a recent research note, they wrote:

"We believe the structural and cyclical terms of global trade have finally reached their tipping point. This will catalyse a wholesale change in sentiment and a historic repositioning of risk assets. The emerging market global growth story is over."

This is the fork Murray has been preparing for in the Slipstream Trader for our subscribers  It would mean falling indexes in Australia, which would of course mean falling components of those indexes. Knight Research elaborates on this fork:

"The game is over. Presently, we believe that the broad-based resurgence of investor confidence in the emerging market and secular bull market in commodities will end badly; proving that the rally which commenced in Q2 2009, was in fact an ‘echo bubble’ facilitated by massive-and unsustainable-stimuli from the Chinese government.

"We believe that the end of the Great Consumer Credit Cycle and the vast structural differences in the terms of trade between the United States, the EU, and China, have finally caught up with the secular bull thesis on emerging market and commodities.

"Quite ironically, the Fed’s aggressive policies will likely prove to be the catalyst which breaks China’s unbridled expansion of credit and non-economic growth, ushering in a wholesale rebalancing of risk assets."

This is not a lukewarm prediction. It would quite obviously be mega bearish for the Aussie Dollar and for commodities. And thus far, there’s not much evidence to support that giant reversal is afoot that is more bearish for emerging markets than it is for the US Dollar. It’s a fork in the road, though. So we have to take it and see where it leads.

There ARE a few factors supporting the "Game Over" theme. One is that Ireland’s woes are not the last o the Eurozone’s problems. There is Greece. There is Spain. And really, Ireland is not even done and dusted yet. To some extent, Euro weakness is dollar bullish and contributes to the "Game Over" theme.

But the bigger factor is Chinese tightening, or just your basic traditional popping massive credit bubble. There are early signs of that. Last week China raised reserve requirements on banks again. And Citigroup agrees with our assessment that rising food prices in China could be bearish for metals.

China’s State Council is talking a big game on controlling inflation. Does it mean China is quickly shifting away from a bias toward export growth toward an inflation fighting bias? That’s the big question. If it does mean that, you can expect lower commodity prices.

For example, three-month copper on the London Metals Exchange fell overnight. The news preceding the drop was that refined copper imports to China fell by a third last month. Comex December copper traded lower too, near $3.75/lb.

We’re going to have Dr. Alex what he thinks about this. But we can guess. He probably loves it. He just got back from another site visit in Africa to a copper project. If you’re a Diggers and Drillers reader don’t worry. You’ve already read about this company. It’s not a new recommendation.

Alex has done his homework on the companies he’s recommended. Weakness in the copper price invariably follows through to the shares. If you’re a secular metals bull, you believe this lowers your average purchase price on the shares most likely to benefit from rising prices.

If you’re a bear on copper, well…you’re a bear. Go dance. Alex, of course, has taken the other fork in the road. This fork is for those who’ve realized the end of the Dollar Standard in the global money system is likely to be bullish for real assets, despite your reflexive US Dollar rallies. Europe’s chronic and structural problems add an element of Dollar support. But the long term story on this fork is to favor "real assets" over paper money.

Which brings us back to Ireland and Australia. Irelands bank’s went all in on the Irish property market. When the bubble burst, the banks were left holding the bag (a huge mortgage book). The bag was so heavy, in fact, it broke their back. So the government had to pick them up. And the bag was too big for the government to pick up too, especially given rising borrowing costs for countries at Europe’s periphery.

Could that ever happen in Australia? Could banks with massive over-exposure to domestic property be caught out by losses and unable to borrow from overseas except at much higher rates? And could the government be forced to step in and cover the bank at the cost of its own good credit?

Buying Gold…? Make it simple, secure and cost-effective by using BullionVault

Tagged with:
Nov 19

Contagion risk is everywhere rightnow…

THERE’S A fungus among us. But is itthe banks? Or is it a caterpillar fungus that boosts sex drive and issoaring in price as China imports Ben Bernanke’s inflation virus? asks Dan Denning in his Daily Reckoning Australia.

You didn’t have to know there wasmore trouble coming from Ireland. Just have a pint at any of the pubshere in St. Kilda and you’ll hear a veritable symphony of Irishaccents. Most of the girls are behind the bar serving drinks. Most ofthe boys are at the bar drinking drinks. All of them seem to behaving a pretty good time, even if they are a long way from home.

Meanwhile, back in Ireland, a Europeandrama is playing out. It’s putting pressure on the Euro and justlike back in may, that word “contagion” is being thrown aroundagain. The U.S. dollar is moving ahead while commodities cool off.

But what about the Irish? Thegovernment has a deficit equal to 32% of GDP which it’s rapidlytrying to bring down through spending cuts. And if interest rates onsovereign Irish debt weren’t rising (they are) the governmentdoesn’t appear to be in any kind of immediate funding crisis.

Down the track though, investors arelooking at the Irish banks and realising the Irish banks are stillstuffed with heaps of toxic assets. Irish banks have been borrowingfrom the European Central Bank in order to refinance theirobligations to other lenders. But ultimately, Ireland’s governmentis on the hook for bailing out the banks (again). And if Ireland’sgovernment doesn’t have the money to do it (it doesn’t) then thetask falls to the ECB.

Of course it’s possible the Irishgovernment finally stops the madness and says to its banks, getstuffed. Based on the number of punch ups we’ve seen at pubs in thelast year, we know the Irish aren’t afraid of a fight or a littlerebellion now and then. But the rest of Europe—especially Greece,Spain and Portugal—are keen for Ireland to agree to an ECB plan andhalt an investor run on the euro and on European sovereign debt.

Does any of this really matter toAustralia? Well, aside from expecting even more Irish to invade St.Kilda if the Irish banks fold, the weaker euro is leading to arelatively stronger dollar. That’s causing carry traders whoborrowed in cheap USD to take profits on their “risk” trades inhigher yielding assets like the Aussie dollar, which you can now buyfor ninety six US cents.

Ireland “matters” in the largersense that it’s also a test of popular tolerance for socialisingthe losses of the banks. No one knows what the consequence ofallowing major Irish (or any other) banks to fail. But we are told,mostly by the bankers, that it would be such a disaster for theeconomy that the government simply must assume those bad debts andthe central bank must print more money to recapitalise the banks.

The problem is really the same now asit was two years ago—way too much bad debt that cannot be cancelledout by issuing more debt. The “solution” offered by theauthorities doesn’t really seem like a solution. It just seems likea get out of jail free card for the bankers and endless more debt asfar as the eye can see.

There’s no doubt there’d be somereal havoc in financial markets and the economy with a real reckoningin the banking sector. But the situation we have right now is prettylousy too. Could allowing the banks to fail be much worse? At somepoint the debt is going to have to be liquidated or restructured.

Closer to home here in Australia is thenews that China is trying to choke down inflation by reducing loansto property developers. Bloomberg reports that China’s four biggestbanks–Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., ChinaConstruction Bank Corp, Bank of China Ltd. and Agricultural Bank ofChina Ltd.—have all met their lending targets this year and won’tbe making any more loans. China’s M2 measure of money supply rose19.3% over the last year, according to figures released last month.

That kind of lending boom leadsto 15-story hotels allegedly being built in six days. Italso leads to politically destabilising inflation in the goods peoplebuy every day. For instance prices in Shenzhen are now growing muchfaster than prices in Hong Kong, which is a reversal of thetraditional relationship. “Shoppers report that certain food andgrocery items can be to 40% cheaper in Hong Kong,” reports ColleenRyan in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review.

“It is not just fresh fruit andvegetables. Even items like Dove soap, which is manufactured in Anhuiprovince in China, is 25% cheaper in Hong Kong…The increase hasbeen more than 300% for a small group of herbs. Caterpillar fungus,said to slow down the ageing process and boost sex drive, has beenone of the top performers.”

The other obvious inflation China is inthe share market. It’s turned down in the last two days, droppingover 4% Tuesday, with metals producers and property developers hitthe hardest. Note also that the Aussie market (the All Ords in thegold line) has pretty much tracked the Shanghai Stock Exchange. TheAussie Dollar looks pretty elevated compared to both.

Get the safest gold at the lowestprices by using world No.1 BullionVault

 

Tagged with:
Oct 25

Lies, central banking, and George Orwell…

On FRIDAY,
15 October 2010, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke delivered a dishonest speech, writes Fred Sheehan in The Daily Reckoning.

What follows is not a critique of the talk, Monetary Policy Tools and Objectives in a Low-Inflation Environment, since that would be redundant. Please see one of my recent articles "Exploiting Bernanke" (September 21, 2010), which discussed the anticipated speech of October 15, 2010.

Bernanke’s mendacious speech confirmed my general investment advice:

"Courses of protection include buying farms (including machinery companies, grain commodity funds, water rights, and desalinization companies), as well as precious metals, mining and drilling companies, and freeze-dried food."

As a guess, Bernanke’s current intention (this will change, and change often) is to add a trillion Dollars to the economy. Such a wild, mad experiment has never been attempted before, outside of Argentina, Zimbabwe, and such.

The reason last Friday’s speech could be analyzed three weeks before it was delivered is Bernanke’s predictability. He will do nothing that veers from the course he found convenient for personal advancement three decades ago. He has neither said nor would dare process a thought that deviates from his doctoral thesis.

Even the title of his latest speech is a lie or stupid, as you wish – broadcasting as he did our "Low-Inflation Environment". Inflation is practically everywhere that counts: food, insurance premiums, utility bills, tuitions. ("Where it counts" does not include the deflation of what really counts: wages, net wealth, house prices. This is why the "inflation vs. deflation" question is false.) Commodity prices keep rising, partially because there is greater demand than supply; partially because we are used to seeing oil and corn quoted in Dollars. Producer and consumer prices generally lag commodity prices. The length of the lag differs. Anywhere from three months to one year captures most instances, under normal conditions. (When further depreciation of the Dollar against commodities is anticipated, the lag will be compressed.) The Dollar has fallen against a basket of currencies by 13% over the past 18 weeks. It is prudent to at least hedge for a contraction of this lag.

Bernanke’s speech was characteristic. He turned logic on its head and ignored the most debilitating consequences of his past actions. The Fed chairman used official government numbers to claim inflation was too low. Homage to government inflation calculations should have, alone, been enough for the media to ignore anything else he said. Of course, he was dutifully quoted and taken at his word.

It was not that long ago when an economist who claimed inflation was too low would have lost credibility. Bernanke stated "that FOMC participants generally judge the mandate-consistent inflation rate to be about 2 percent or a bit below." The FOMC is the Federal Open Market Committee – the body that has absolute authority to act upon such inverted thinking as 2% inflation being good for the country.

A step back, to 1957: This was a time when academic economists were learning that theories manipulated to satisfy politicians could put themselves in positions of power. Most from this guild never dreamt anyone outside a college classroom noticed their existence. They miscalculated, as is the rule for these humbugs.

Politicians want money and credit to fulfill their constituents’ every wish. A Harvard economist told Congress that the US needed a 2% rate of inflation to defeat communism. Washington loved him.

On August 13, 1957, William McChesney Martin, the Federal Reserve chairman at the time (and not an economist – he had been a Latin scholar at Yale, so understood that shortcuts destroy empires), lectured the Senate Banking Committee on the specific topic of the Federal Reserve "targeting" (Bernanke’s word – not Martin’s) a 2% rate of inflation:

"Consumers are encouraged to postpone saving and instead purchase goods which they do not immediately need, and the incentive to strive for efficiency no longer governs business decisions…and speculative influences impair reliance upon business judgment."

Of utmost importance, groups struggle to insulate themselves from the loss of purchasing power, then "fundamental faith in the fairness of our institutions and our government deteriorates."

The Bernanke Fed has stated its current policy is to chase consumers out of savings and into speculative ventures. That is exactly the recipe for the Fed to accelerate its impoverishment of the American people. Alan Greenspan, of course, was the master at jumbling a few words to distract attention from this long-running plan to prevent the Fed’s extinction. Bernanke also resorts to nonsense. From his October 15, 2010, speech: a 2% rate of inflation is to "attain…price stability" and to "bring the unemployment rate down significantly." He is doing exactly the opposite of what he pretends

George Orwell wrote about "[t]his lunatic world in which opposites are turned into one another." That was not lunacy for lunacy’s sake, nor is it today.

In 1940, Orwell wrote of World War II: "After 1936, of course, the thing was obvious to anyone except an idiot." He was not erasing his own past, as was common with many others and is universal among "experts" today. (See the first paragraph of Ben Bernanke’s October 15, 2010, speech.) In 1938, upon returning to England from continental Europe, Orwell had written about the…

"familiar streets, the posters telling of cricket matches and Royal weddings, the men in bowler hats, the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, the red busses, the blue policemen – all sleeping the deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs."

The bombs flattened London in 1940.

The British institutions in the 1930s were in the same condition that the Federal Reserve, other government manipulators, the so-called economics profession, and the revered think tanks are in today. Orwell wrote of Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940:

"He was merely a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights. It is difficult otherwise to explain the contradictions of his policy, his failure to grasp any of the courses that were open to him. Like the mass of the people, he did not want to pay the price either of peace or of war."

At another point:

"Tossed to and fro between their incomes and their principles, it was impossible that men like Chamberlain should do anything but make the worst of both worlds."

This is an apt summation of the desiccated American hierarchy today. It is withering into dust.

Chamberlain had trusted Hitler, as had his predecessor, Stanley Baldwin. As prime minister, Baldwin had suppressed information about Hitler’s rearmament, sleeping, as was his wish, the deep, deep sleep of England. Orwell wrote:

"One could not even dignify [Baldwin] with the name of stuffed shirt. He was simply a hole in the air."

Baldwin did everything he could to prevent any disruption to the exact relations that existed among the social and political institutions of the day.

Winston Churchill, not in office but a nuisance to the established order, knew the proportions of Nazi rearmament and gave speeches in Parliament with uncomfortable details. Baldwin’s cabinet voted to ban "independent views" from the BBC. Sir John Reith, dictator of the BBC, prevented Churchill from speaking. CNBC does much the same today, as does the print media.

Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times of London, suppressed Churchill’s views as well as those from Times reporters whose dispatches from Europe might upset Hitler. In 1935, Dawson wrote, "I do my utmost, night after night, to keep out of the paper anything that might hurt their [Nazi] susceptibilities." He wrote this letter because he could not understand the Fuhrer’s ingratitude after, in the words of William Manchester, "five years of jumping through Hitler’s hoops."

Dawson was not a Nazi but a dense, frightened old man who wanted the world to stand still. We can see the same combinations of dis-enlightenment that keep the American public in the dark today. An example is the coordination among government agencies (their data dissemination propaganda) and the Federal Reserve’s contorted views as expressed through the country’s news collection agencies.

The Associated Press released the following on October 14, 2010, a day ahead of Bernanke’s speech:

"Wholesale prices tame beyond volatile food, energy

"(AP) Wholesale inflation stayed tame last month outside of a sharp rise in food and energy prices. Moderate price inflation allows the Federal Reserve to keep the short-term interest rate it controls at a record low of nearly zero, where it has been since December 2008."

With that, the AP assured its access to the Fed chairman.

In 1952, Bernard Iddings Bell wrote Crowd Culture, in which he discussed a wartime incident:

"When Russia was Hitler’s ally in World War II, the American people were told by the papers, and believed, that the Russians were little short of fiends. Suddenly Russia changed sides…[S]he became our ally.

"At a dinner in New York at that time, I sat next to a high-up officer of one of the great news-collecting agencies. ‘I suppose,’ I ventured, ‘now that the Muscovites are on our side, the American people will have to be indoctrinated so as to stop thinking of them as devils and begin to regard them as noble fellows.’ ‘Of course,’ he replied. ‘We know what our job is in respect to that. We in the working press will bring about a complete and almost unanimous volte face in the belief of the Common Man about the Russians. We shall do it in three weeks.’ He was right about it. The papers, fed by the news agencies, did just that."

On March 29, 1943, Life magazine published a "Special Issue USSR". On the front cover is a portrait of Uncle Joe Stalin, beaming downward, as if the dictator is looking upon his 3-year-old nephew who just counted to 10 for the first time. Over 100 pages of the issue describe the Soviet Union’s wholesome leaders and their obliging peasantry.

Among the wholesome leaders is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), with a similar, avuncular portrait, as if he’s looking at the same nephew who just counted to 20. The article, "The Father of Modern Russia", starts off "Perhaps the greatest man of modern times was Vladimir IIyich Ulyanov." It goes uphill – or downhill – from there, depending on one’s view.

Flipping through the issue, the article "Collective Farms Feed the Nation" is worth a look. Pictures of the peasants are inspiring. They were a happy lot. The story starts off: "Although Russia was always overwhelmingly an agricultural country, most Russians used to go hungry."

Later in article: "Whatever the cost of farm collectivization, in terms of human life and individual liberty, the historic fact is it worked." The cost of farm collectivization included several million Ukrainians who had been starved to death in the early-1930s.

"Collective Farms" could be written by an economist – then or now – without irony or conscience. Such a contortion of reality would do wonders for a rising academic or Federal Reserve staffer.

Orwell was harsh in his criticism of the intelligentsia, whose loyalties were as fickle as their abstractions. He did not confuse the term, intelligentsia, with intelligence. It was a collection of layabouts who, in a "desire for psychological escape" indulge in "chauvinistic sentiments that would be totally impossible if you recognized them for what they were." Such a person is "capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakably certain of being right."

In their world: "Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored to alter their meaning." Communism was an outpost for many of the intelligentsia in the 1930s. John Reed, author of Ten Days That Shook the World (about the Russian Revolution), had willed the publication rights of his book to the British Communist Party. Reed died in 1920. The British Communist Party did exactly what Moscow wanted: it published an edition that excised Leon Trotsky’s role in the revolution and deleted an introduction by Lenin.

Orwell wrote: "Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned, and ultimately denied." British Communists were badly shaken by the Russo-Nazi pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop) in 1939, an eventuality not difficult to forecast by a party whose subservience to Moscow should have animated its consciousness towards Russian self-interest.

Bernanke, the Fed, and the other weary institutions fall within Orwell’s description of Chamberlain and his circle:

"What is to be expected of them is not treachery or physical cowardice, but stupidity, unconscious sabotage, an infallible instinct for doing the wrong thing. They are not wicked, or not altogether wicked; they are merely unteachable. Only when their money and power are gone will the younger among them begin to grasp what century they are living in."

Of Bernanke today, he is a combination of both the establishment and the regimented intelligentsia that has acquired power. Orwell wrote of the intelligentsia:

"Clearly there was only one escape for them – into stupidity. They could keep society in its existing shape only by being unable to grasp that any improvement was necessary"

After a time, which looks like it will be after Bernanke and his comrades have done their worst, a leader, looking at the world as it is, may state:

"Difficulties began to build up in the economy in the 1970s, with the rates of economic growth declining visibly…A lag ensued in the material base of science and education, health protection, culture and everyday services. Though efforts have been made of late, we have not succeeded in fully remedying the situation. There are serious lags…in the improvement of the people’s standard of living."

Thus spoke Mikhail Gorbachev in his 1986 speech to the 27th Communist Party Congress when he effectively declared the institutions which had colluded to bankrupt the nation’s economy and spirit were dead.

Get the safest gold at the lowest prices by using BullionVault

Tagged with:
Oct 15

Top Gold Mining analyst questions the long-term support for gold, absent today’s "crisis mentality"…

A PhD METALLURGIST
who began his career working with Xstrata (then MIM Holdings Limited) at Mt. Isa, Queensland, Tony Parry is now a senior analyst with Sydney, Australia-based Resource Capital Research.

Previously working as a mining equities analyst with James Capel Limited (now part of HSBC), as well as in equity sales and mining corporate finance – marketing to institutional clients in the UK and Europe – Tony Parry established his own consultancy in 1993, advising many small-medium enterprises on strategic planning.

Today, when building his long-term models for Australian junior Gold Mining companies, he uses a long term Gold Price of US$900 per ounce. But Tony thinks gold’s fundamentals are weak and that fear is artificially propping up the price, as he explains here to The Gold Report

The Gold Report: Tony, you joined Resource Capital Research as a senior analyst in 2008. Tell us about your coverage sector.

Tony Parry: At Resource Capital Research, we cover exploration and development companies, typically those with emerging production profiles that have not been picked up by the market or major brokerage firms and need further research coverage.

We cover three sectors – gold, uranium and iron ore. We publish major reports each quarter covering a number of significant companies in those sectors, and these reports contain a commodity price outlook for the commodity we’re looking at.

TGR: On the gold side, Australia has quite a history of Gold Mining, especially in the Kalgoorlie area. But in other countries, gold has taken on something of a stigma in recent years. What’s the general sentiment toward Gold Mining right now in Australia?

Tony Parry: Australian mining is a very positive and somewhat booming sector. It’s growing strongly, and there’s no major resistance to further development, apart from the normal environmental and social concerns about developing mining operations.

TGR: What sort of play is gold receiving in Australia’s mainstream media? Is there a buzz about gold at $1300 an ounce?

Tony Parry: It’s exciting times for the gold market; $1300 an ounce is a pretty significant breakthrough and, of course, that’s getting a lot of play in the financial reporting sector. We’re seeing lots of articles on the Gold Price. Every article seems to be placing a bet on gold. So, yes, there’s quite a buzz in the press and there are a lot of people talking about gold.

TGR: Do you think the average Australian is aware that $1300 per ounce is really good for the Australian economy in terms of exports?

Tony Parry: Yes, I think they’re pretty in tune with what’s happening in the resources sector; as I say, it’s such a significant part of the Australian economy. Even in the largest cities there’s no doubt the Gold Price is widely visible.

If you got in a taxi in the capital city of Australia and talked to a taxi driver about what’s going on, he would probably talk to you about the Gold Price.

TGR: What are we looking at in terms of mining’s contribution to GDP there?

Tony Parry: I don’t have the exact numbers, but something like 30% of Australia’s total exports are made up of mining-related commodities. The three big exports in Australia are coal, iron ore and gold, in that order.

TGR: Your firm predicted an average Gold Price of just below $1200 an ounce for 2010; obviously that was a little low. What sort of fundamentals did you see in the gold market and in the global economy that led you to say in a recent report "take away the ‘crisis mentality’ and gold looks precarious"?

Tony Parry: What we were seeing and what we’re still seeing is that the "doomsday mentality" is driving investment demand in the gold market. The simple fact is the "crisis mentality" has not been removed from the equation since we made those forecasts. In fact, the "crisis mentality" is bubbling along very well, perhaps even increasing as European sovereign debt concerns continue to make headlines.

And we’re still seeing major concerns about the US economy and the issues surrounding quantitative easing, which are starting to have an impact on the US Dollar. There’s quite a bit of pressure on the US Dollar.

Perhaps we felt that there was going to be some easing of that crisis mentality in the coming quarter or two, but at the moment there’s no sign of that and it may very well be increasing.

TGR: But in looking through RCR’s September report on gold, your price estimates are quite conservative across the board. In your financial models, you’re now using a long-term Gold Price of $900 an ounce. That seems particularly bearish.

Tony Parry: It does in the current environment. We say in Australia that predicting the Gold Price is a bit of a mug’s game. The fundamentals are pretty tricky to go on, so you’ve really got to go on the psychology of the market. Gold doesn’t have enough underpinning it to make a projection on the fundamentals.

TGR: I agree, but you must see something in those supply and demand fundamentals to project such conservative prices.

Tony Parry: That’s right. At the end of the day we have to come up with some sort of basis for our forecasts. We asked ourselves: is $1300-an-ounce gold sustainable or is that a spike? We believe that in a few years’ time and once everything gets back to normal – and please don’t ask me when that is – we will see gold come off the top quite significantly.

Our argument is that the Gold Price is being sustained by strong "safe haven" investment demand. But if you take that demand away, we see weak fundamentals; jewelry demand is quite weak, which has been the main source of gold demand, before investment demand started challenging jewelry demand in recent times.

Gold Mining production is increasing because of the increased prices, so there’s more supply coming on the market. We’re also seeing increased scrap supply from recycled gold.

On the demand side, we’re seeing negligible purchases from central banks, perhaps because they just don’t want to buy more gold at these prices. And as I mentioned, we’ve seen the end producer de-hedging, which has been a demand-side factor in recent times. We may even see more hedging from producers.

If you put all that together, and significantly reduce investment demand, we see gold coming significantly off the top. We wouldn’t be expecting that in the short-to-medium term. But if you ask what’s the fundamental value of gold? At the moment, we say that’s about $900 to $1,000 an ounce. That is probably the ultimate baseline that gold will come back to when it’s safe to go back into the water with the other asset classes that people don’t really trust at the moment.

It could be a number of years, but investment banks will be doing the same; they won’t be factoring the current Gold Prices into their long-term valuation models. And I think that’s fine because if we’re wrong, and a company still looks good on that basis, that’s pretty good news for the company.

But we do see the speculative element washing out in time.

TGR: In your report you said that in the future you could see a sustained inflationary uptrend that could ignite gold’s "store of value" demand. You added that it’s too far off to be a factor in the short-to-medium term. Could inflation prop up gold once this "crisis mentality" subsides?

Tony Parry: That’s a good question. There’s no doubt that inflation is in the melting pot as an argument for holding gold. Quantitative easing is the pump priming the US economy and other economies. The classic theory is that the more money you pump into the system, the higher inflation is going to be in the end. At the moment, we’re seeing more concern with deflation in the US and European economies. You’d have to say inflation is not a strong factor right now.

Longer term, yes, inflation could rear its head. But inflation would require some economic growth to become a real factor, and by then you may see equity markets back into the next bull phase. I have a hunch that by the time that is happening, some of the speculation in gold will have washed out. I see that as a bigger factor than the "big inflation" argument.

For the record, we just published our September quarterly gold report, and we’re feeling less bearish. Given the continued concerns in the market, we expect gold to keep pushing up into the first half of 2011. We’re looking at around $1335 to $1350 during that period.

TGR: In your June report you said that in the last five to seven years, one of the major trends in Gold Mining has been for gold producers to buy out their hedging contracts to gain more exposure to the spot price. But you also said in a recent report that the gold sector could see a "return to net producer hedging at Gold Prices above a $1000 an ounce driven by producer concern that the highs for gold may have been seen for now and the requirement by project financiers to lock in for future margins." That’s remarkable. Have you seen any evidence of hedging above $1000 per ounce?

Tony Parry: Well, I’ll be honest – not a lot at the moment. There’s no doubt that the producer hedge book has run down to virtually zero.

TGR:
I’ve talked with a number of analysts who like Gold Mining juniors that are producing, but that also have some strong exploration upside. Do you follow companies that fit that description?

Tony Parry: Yes, but first I want to comment on that thesis. There’s no doubt that exploration is a tremendous driver of shareholder value for emerging companies. What we’re seeing is that a lot of the Australian companies in West Africa are having excellent exploration success. In fact, they’re getting huge gains on their share prices – 200 to 300% – due to exploration success. That’s happening because they are discovering gold at a discovery cost of around $10-$15 an ounce.

Equity markets, doing simplistic valuation multiples on gold resources and reserves, value them typically at $50-$100 an ounce once you’ve got a significant gold resource established, maybe 500,000 ounces or more. If your discovery cost is $10-$15 an ounce and you’re being valued by the market at $50-$100 an ounce, there are tremendous gains to be made through exploration success. You’re getting very high leverage on those exploration multiples. That’s the game at the moment.

TGR: Do you have some parting thoughts on the precious metals sector in Australia?

Tony Parry: Yes, obviously, the Gold Price is up 31%, in US Dollar terms, in the last 12 months. But the Gold Prices in producing countries haven’t been nearly as strong because of the appreciation of currencies. The Canadian Gold Price is up 23% in that 12-month period, as opposed to 31% for Gold Prices in US Dollars. And in Australia, the Gold Price is only up 19%.

But if you look at the performance of the indices over the same 12-month period, the US-based gold stocks, with the S&P gold index, are up 49% in that 12-month period. That’s performing better than the Gold Price, and that’s to be expected as there are no currency issues there.

In Canada, the gold index is up 18%; so, it’s actually underperformed the Gold Price. You’d have been better off holding gold rather than Canadian gold stocks in that period. That’s partly due to the fact that the Canadian Dollar Gold Price was up just over 20%.

But the Australian gold index in that 12-month period is up 43%, even though Australian Gold Price was up only 19%; so, Australian gold shares have been fantastic performers. And I am sort of bragging.

Want to Buy Physical Gold…and own it outright, rather than as a credit risk…in the safest locations on earth for just $4 per month? Go to BullionVault now…

Tagged with:
Oct 14

How differing rates of "money growth" are weakening the US Dollar…

AT THE END
of September the price of the Euro in US Dollar terms closed at 1.357 – an increase of 7% from the end of August, writes Dr.Frank Shostak, chief economist at MF Global in Australia and a regular contributor to the Austrian-school Mises.org, for the Cobden Centre.

The yearly rate of growth of the price of Euro stood at minus 7.3% in September against minus 11.5% in the month before.

The currency rate of exchange seems to be moving in response to so
many factors that it makes it almost impossible to ascertain where the
rate of exchange is likely to be headed.  We suggest that rather than
paying attention to the multitude of apparent variables, it is more
sensible to focus on the essential variable. As far as currency rate of
exchange determination is concerned we suggest that this variable is the
relative changes in the purchasing power of various monies. In short,
it is the relative purchasing power of various monies that set the
underlying rate of exchange.

A price of a basket of goods is the amount of money paid for the
basket. We can also say that the amount of money paid for a basket of
goods is the purchasing power of money with respect to the basket of
goods. If in the US the price of a basket of goods is $1 and in Europe an identical basket of goods is sold for 2 euros then the rate of exchange between the US$ and the euro must be two euros per one dollar.

An important factor in setting the purchasing power of money is the
supply of money. If over time the rate of growth in the US money supply
exceeds the rate of growth of European money supply, all other things
being equal, this will put pressure on the US$. Since a price of a good
is the amount of money asked for the good, this now means that the
prices of goods in dollar terms will increase faster than prices in euro
terms, all other things being equal.

As a result an identical basket of goods is priced now, let us say at $2, as against 2.5 euro. This would imply that the exchange rate between the US$ and the euro will be now 1.25
euros per one dollar. Note the fact that changes in a money supply
affect its general purchasing power with a time lag means that changes
in relative money supply affect the currency rate of exchange also with a
time lag. (When money is injected into the economy it starts with a
particular market before it goes to other markets – this is the reason
for the lag. When it enters a particular market it pushes the price of a
good in this market higher – more money is spent on given goods than
before). This in turn means that past and present information about
money supply can be employed in ascertaining likely future moves in the
currency rate of exchange.

Another important factor in driving the purchasing power of money and
the currency rate of exchange is the demand for money. For instance,
with an increase in the production of goods the demand for money will
follow suit. The demand for the services of the medium of exchange will
increase since more goods must now be exchanged. As a result, for a
given supply of money, the purchasing power of money will increase. 
Less money will be chasing more goods now. Various factors, such as the
interest rate differential, can cause a deviation of the currency rate
of exchange from the level dictated by relative purchasing power. Such
deviation, however, will set corrective forces in motion.

Let us say that the Fed raises its policy interest rate while the
European central bank keeps its policy rate unchanged. We have seen that
if the price of a basket of goods in the US is one dollar and in Europe
two euros, then according to the purchasing power framework the
currency rate of exchange should be one dollar for two euros. As a
result of a widening in the interest rate differential between the US
and the Euro-zone an increase in the demand for dollars pushes the
exchange rate in the market toward one dollar for three euros. This
means that the dollar is now overvalued as depicted by the relative
purchasing power of the dollar versus the euro.

In this situation it will pay to sell the basket of goods for dollars
then exchange dollars for euros and then buy the basket of goods with
euros – thus making a clear arbitrage gain. For example individuals will
sell a basket of goods for one dollar, exchange the one dollar for
three euros, and then exchange three euros for 1.5 basket, gaining 0.5
a basket of goods. The fact that the holder of dollars will increase
his/her demand for euros in order to profit from the arbitrage will make
euros more expensive in terms of dollars – pushing the exchange rate in
the direction of one dollar for two euros.  (We suggest that the
arbitrage will always be set in motion if the rate of exchange deviates,
for whatever reasons, from the underlying rate of exchange).

Since November 2009 the money growth differential between the US and
the Euro-zone has been in a visible increase. After closing at minus 24% in November 2009 the differential jumped to minus 4.2%
in August this year. We suggest that the strengthening in the
differential is the key reason for the underlying strengthening in the
Euro against the US$. Given the relatively more conservative Euro-zone
central bank versus the US central bank it is quite likely that the
money growth differential will continue to strengthen further – thus
providing further support to the Euro.

After closing at minus 3.7% in April the growth differential between
US and Euro-zone industrial production climbed to 0.11% in August. We
envisage that in the months ahead the differential is likely to
stabilize at the August figure. So from this perspective the slight
increase in the differential is likely to provide only marginal support
to the US$ versus the Euro. The differential between the federal funds
rate and the European central bank policy interest rate is likely to
stand at minus 0.75% in the months ahead. (The fed funds rate is
forecast at 0.25% while the ECB rate at 1%). So from this perspective it
is going to have neutral effect on the price of Euro in US dollar
terms.

Again we maintain that the strong support for the Euro versus the US$
is on account of a strengthening in the money growth differential since
November 2009. (Note again that the effect from changes in money supply
and the differential works on the currency rate of exchange
determination with a time lag). This means that the US$ is likely to
remain under pressure. An increase in the industrial production
differential is likely to mitigate the strengthening of the Euro against
the US$. On a short-term basis the price of the euro in US dollar terms
appears to be just about “right” as far as the valuation versus its
12-month moving average is concerned. The price to its 12-month moving
average ratio stood at 1.0 in September versus 0.9 in August. Note that in September last year the ratio stood at 1.08.

Prospects for the Yen against the US dollar

At the end of September the price of the US$ in Yen terms closed at 83.9 – a fall of 0.3% from the end of August. Year-on-year the price of the US$ in Yen terms fell by 6.5% in September after declining by 9.5%
in the month before. Observe that the Yen has been strengthening
against the US$ since July 2007. The price of the dollar to its 12-month
moving average stood at 0.94 in September the same figure as in August. Note that in September last year the ratio stood at 0.946.

Since November 2009 the money growth spread between the US and Japan has been trending up. The differential stood at 2.8% in August against 2.1% in July and minus 13% in November last year. Now after falling to minus 29.1% in February the industrial production growth spread between the US and Japan climbed to minus 9.2%
in August. In the months ahead we expect the growth spread to stabilize
at around the August figure. The interest rate spread doesn’t have much
importance at present given the policy rates in US and Japan are close
to nil. We suggest that in the months ahead the money growth
differential is likely to dominate the currency rate of exchange scene.
This implies that the price of the US$ in yen terms is likely to remain
under pressure.

Money growth differential continues to support Aussie dollar against the US dollar

At the end of September the price of the A$ in terms of US$ closed at 0.967 – an increase of 8.5%
from the end of August. The growth momentum of the price of the A$ has
also strengthened visibly. The yearly rate of growth jumped to 9.4% from 5.4% in August. The ratio of the A$/US$ to its 12-month moving average climbed to 1.076 in September from 0.999
in the month before – this could be interpreted that relatively to its
12- month moving average the price of the A$ in US$ terms is
over-stretched.

A major factor behind the strengthening in the A$ against the US$ is a
visible strengthening in the money growth differential between the US
and Australia. After falling to minus 15% in November last year the differential shot up to 9.1% in June before settling at 7.6%
in August. From the demand for Aussie dollars perspective a strong
increase in the price of gold provides important support for the
Australian currency versus the US dollar. From these two key factors we
suggest that for the time being the Aussie dollar is going to be well
supported in the months ahead, all other things being equal.

Get the very safest gold at the very lowestprices by using the award-winning, mining-industry-backed world No.1, BullionVault

Tagged with:
Oct 11

Gold investors wanting coins and small bars might be surprised if another "crisis" hits the markets…

WE’VE GOT IT
pretty easy right now, writes Jeff Clark of Doug Casey’s Gold & Resource Report.

Click or call, and you can quickly and conveniently own a Gold Coin or small bar to keep at home. But if global concerns cause another panic – or the Dollar breaks down – you could find yourself standing in a line at the local coin shop or getting a busy signal from a larger coin dealer.

Simply, for reasons I’ll discuss here, you may find it very difficult to buy physical gold when that time comes.

It’s happened before. Though there were no precious metal ETFs in 1980, the demand for physical gold was so great that you literally had to wait in line at a coin shop to buy, with plenty of occasions when you would have been turned away due to lack of inventory. And you’ll recall we saw serious shortages, unexpected delays, and soaring premiums for retail investment products in late 2008.

Given the fragile state of global affairs and the waiting-in-the-wings crisis for the US Dollar, I’ll be surprised if we don’t see another panic into physical gold. And the question is, will there be enough metal to go around when the public – 95% of which own none – wakes up and wants to buy it?

Answer: No.

Contrary to some claims, it isn’t because we’re about to run out of supply. While global mine production peaked in 1999 at 82.1 million ounces and has trended down since, take a look at the second largest source of supply – scrap. As you would expect, bad economic times and the surge in Gold Prices have triggered an increase in supplies from that source.

In fact, since 1999, as the price of gold climbed, the scrap supply nearly doubled. (Scrap comes mostly from jewelry, 75% of which derives from India, East/Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.)

So when you examine the total supply of gold coming to the market, it’s actually nudged up for three consecutive years, hitting 116.6 million ounces in 2009, a modest 8% increase over 1999. In the greater scheme of things, the total supply of gold to market has changed very little.

So what’s the problem?

First, you’d think a higher price would lead to rising mine production – but that’s not happening. From 1999 through 2009, the average annual Gold Price rose 248%, yet gold production fell 6.6%.

This means that as gold continues higher, we cannot count on miners producing more yellow metal for us to buy. This concern will become increasingly obvious as more buyers enter the market.

Second, although scrap has more than supplemented the fall in mine production, as I’ll show you in a moment, it’s still not enough to fully satisfy current demand, let alone any increase in buying.

Meanwhile, the third major source of gold supply is reversing trend. Until last year, central banks around the world had been selling gold, adding a reliable tributary to the flow of metal year after year. This has stopped. As recently as 2007, 17 million ounces came to market from central banks; last year they acquired 7 million ounces. The era of central banks as large net gold sellers has likely ended.

The conclusion we can draw from these signals is clear: known gold supply conduits will not deliver any significant new supply in the future. This will have serious repercussions. While it’s certainly bullish for the price, I think many investors have overlooked a critical angle:

If more and more people want to Buy Gold and the supply doesn’t increase, what happens to your ability to get it? You can’t turn a profit if you can’t own it. Realistically, though, how much more demand can we expect?

One way to estimate this is to compare today’s percentage of global assets in gold to the last great bull market…

While gold’s share of the global financial landscape has grown since 2001, a whopping 385% leap is needed to equal its 1980 peak.

Certainly some of that percentage could result from a decrease in the value of other assets. For example, residential and commercial real estate values will continue to fall as bad loans are unwound, and stock markets will adjust lower as global economies slow from cutbacks in government spending. But the gap is so enormous that investment in gold could easily increase significantly before this bull market is over.

Another way to measure potential future demand for Gold Investment is to look at today’s bar and coin demand compared to the last bull market. The following chart first looks at what portion investment in gold comprises of the total uses for gold (i.e., including jewelry and industrial uses). Then we look at the percentage coin buying represents today vs. the peak in 1979. The point is to see if we’ve already reached high investment levels in gold similar to the last bull market peak – or if there’s room for more.

When Gold Investment demand – whether for physical metal or bank buying etc – peaked in 1979, it represented 54% of all uses for gold that year, a far cry from last year’s 32%.

Of course, this is just arithmetic; lower jewelry demand could make investment demand look bigger as a share of total demand. But this data makes clear that an increase in investors wanting more gold could rise dramatically.

The picture is more striking when we look at Gold Coin demand. Coin buyers represented 36% of all gold investments in 1979; today it’s barely 14%. Coin demand would have to grow by 157% to match the last bull market peak. Yes, gold ETFs have and will continue to replace some of the demand for physical metal, but this shows there remains tremendous room for growth for investors wanting more Gold Coins.

Based on this data, I believe that despite the strong demand for gold investments we see today, it can go much, much higher in the coming years.

Here are some examples of coin demand straining current supply that you may find surprising…

  • The Rand Refinery in South Africa, the world’s largest, forecasts it’ll sell 1 million Krugerrands this year. Sounds like a lot – until you consider that from 1974 to 1984, they sold 2.6 million ounces per year. And that was when the world’s population was roughly 35% lower than today;
  • The US Mint has had difficulty meeting heightened demand when annual sales are only slightly above historical averages;
  • So far this year, Gold Mining production in world No.1 China is up 5%, but demand for physical gold in the world’s No.2 market is up 30%;
  • During two tense weeks of the Greek crisis in April/May, the Austrian Mint, one of the world’s five largest, sold a quarter-million ounces, an amount that exceeded all of first-quarter sales. And Pro-Aurum, one of Europe’s largest online precious metals traders, had to temporarily suspend sales due to a backlog of orders and insufficient supply. If Greek-style sovereign debt fears spread to other nations – something looking all but assured – rolling bullion shortages could resurface.

While all this is bullish for the price of gold, it’s alarming what it suggests might happen to the availability of physical gold.

So my question is this: if the Dollar is collapsing and gold is screaming to $5,000 an ounce, will you feel like you own enough?

Better get some now while you still can.

Quit paying retail and get into the deepest, safest and most cost-effective Gold Bullion market – the professional wholesale trade – using world No.1 BullionVault

Tagged with:
Oct 07

Gold Prices are set to hit $1500 sooner, not later, says this senior advisor and analyst…

SO GOLD
broke through a new record earlier last week and this, topping $1300 an ounce for the first time before rising still further, says Hard Assets Investor.

Psychologically, that $1300 level was important – it appears to have pumped more steam into the gold rally and transformed even the most dedicated gold bears into bulls. But the uptrend shows no signs of reversal anytime soon, says Jeffrey Nichols, senior economic adviser to Rosland Capital and the managing director of American Precious Metals Advisors.

A widely recognized expert in precious metals, Nichols has worked with everyone from mints to Gold Mining companies to develop financing and investor relations. Here he tells Hard Assets editor Lara Crigger about whether gold’s nearing bubble territory, why food prices affect gold, and why $1500 gold by year end is just the beginning.

Hard Assets Investor: Gold just broke $1300 per ounce earlier this week, and you’ve publicly stated you believe it could go as high as $1500 per ounce by the end of the year. Why is $1300 such an important level? And why do you see $1500 in our near future?

Jeffrey Nichols: $1300 is an important level mostly for psychological reasons, because it’s a round number. People love round numbers, particularly technically oriented traders. So that’s one reason. The other is, it worked hard the last couple of months to finally break through. And now that it has, it seems to be establishing a new floor above or around $1300. So, from a technical point of view, it looks to me like it’s gathering steam for another effort at moving higher from these levels.

I’m optimistic about the $1500 per ounce forecast by year end, which, incidentally, is the forecast that we’ve had for a year or longer. In the next couple of months, gold has a variety of factors going for it. First and most simply, seasonal demand.

HAI: Right. We’re getting into the holiday season, all across the world.

Jeffrey Nichols: That’s probably what pushed us over $1300. In the Western world, jewelry manufacturers start gearing up and building inventory for the Christmas season, so that brings Christmas forward for jewelry manufacturers and that’s just now beginning to kick in.

But gold demand for jewelry and small investment items in India also has a very strong seasonal aspect to it. Some of it is because of festivals and the marriage season; some of it is because the beginning of September is harvest time for many of the farm communities in India.

This year, harvests will be quite good, because we’ve had, from the Indian point of view, a very good monsoon. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the same storm caused all that havoc, but India got none of the problems, only the benefits. So agrarian income will be good this year, and some of that income naturally finds its way into gold.

One of the important things about Southeast Asian demand, in general, and Middle Eastern demand, is that it doesn’t require economic crises to do well. What it requires is good growth in personal income. From India to China, to Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines – all these countries are enjoying very strong economic growth. People in these regions Buy Gold for a variety of reasons, one of which is as a form of savings. So when incomes are strong, some portion will go into gold.

HAI: Now as gold moves higher, are we starting to near bubble territory?

Jeffrey Nichols: I don’t think that at all. In fact, over the last couple of years, there have been several episodes where analysts and investors have either said we’re in a gold bubble, or worried that soon we’d be in a bubble. I don’t think that’s the case.

First of all, participation in the gold market may be more than ever before, but it’s still fairly limited in terms of Western investment demand. For investors in Europe and the US, their participation in gold is still relatively small scale compared to their holdings of stocks and bonds.

Also, we haven’t seen a rush into gold. It’s been orderly, and it’s been for good reasons. Now, come back to me in three years or whenever we’re nearing the top of the Gold Price cycle, and I might give you a different answer, because when you get to a top, you often get that type of action. In 1980, you could say we were in a bubble. All that activity and demand for gold compressed into a very small period of time. In the matter of literally a few days, gold just went through the roof.

HAI: Right. Now we often overlook the effect of the commodity markets on gold, but gold is a commodity, first and foremost, and what happens in those markets does make an impact. You’ve said we’ll see higher food prices in the future; how do rising food prices impact the price of gold?

Jeffrey Nichols: Rising food prices are an element of overall inflation. When we go to the supermarket, we see tighter prices for foodstuffs across the board. It’s not just one or two items that are out of whack. It’s agricultural commodities in general, and we can literally see and feel that effect on our household budget. People don’t see the consumer price index when they go shopping; there’s no shelf that says Consumer Price Inflation.

But on the shelves are all sorts of things where prices are higher from week to week: cocoa prices, given poor harvests; coffee prices are very high. Beef prices are rising, not only because feed stocks are more expensive, but also because of changing dietary patterns in what was once the developing world.

One of the things I’ve always loved about being a gold analyst is the fact that so many things around the world – whether it’s politics, economics, food prices, oil prices, currency markets, monetary policy in the US, monetary policy in Europe, developments in China and India – come to play in the gold market. And it makes it very interesting as an analyst.

HAI: When you invest in gold, you have to take a holistic sort of approach, right?

Jeffrey Nichols: Absolutely, and I think the mistake that many people make when they’re looking at the gold market is the focus on one or two things, which tends to be US monetary policy and what’s happening to the Dollar. That’s very important, and that’s playing a role in this whole bull market, at least over the last couple of years and for the next year or two, probably.

But it’s not the only factor and many people talk about it as if it were. They’re missing out on what’s happening in China and India, what’s happening with central banks, the stagnation in mine supply, the introduction and development and expansion of new gold investment products, or what I call the "Gold Investment infrastructure"…

HAI: Right. Gold ETFs opened up the space for new investors.

Jeffrey Nichols: That, in combination with other factors, has had a phenomenal influence on the price, and will continue to do so. ETFs have made gold investing easier and more accessible to more investors around the world, both individual investors and institutional investors. Many of the institutions now Buying Gold would not be in the market were it not for these new instruments.

And for other institutions, it’s just made it easier. They don’t have to deal with gold dealers who they’re not familiar with, haven’t done business with. They don’t have to deal with understanding how the physical markets trade. They don’t have to deal with transportation, storage and insurance issues. They Buy Gold and can sell gold just like they would sell any equity.

HAI: In some ways, I think the physical market is almost like the Wild West. There are certainly a lot of very reputable places to get your bullion, but there’s a heck of a lot of places looking to screw you, too.

Jeffrey Nichols: There are. And it’s difficult for somebody who’s not in the industry to discern one from the other sometimes.

And it’s not just that we have one or a few ETFs here in the United States. ETFs are springing up, and will continue to do so, in other important geographic markets. We have ETFs in India, Europe, Switzerland and the UK.

HAI: How does central bank buying factor into the Gold Price? Certainly we’ve seen massive uptake on their end recently, particularly in China.

Jeffrey Nichols: The central bank, I believe, continues to Buy Gold surreptitiously and does not report its regular purchases of gold. You read the newspapers and it says what central banks this year bought, but whatever the analyst says in the article, you can imagine that it’s actually a good deal more, because of unreported purchases. And it’s probably by more central banks than just the Chinese.

The Chinese announced in April of 2009 that in the prior six years, they had bought many hundreds of tons. And since then, there’s been no increase in reported reserves. I can’t possibly imagine that suddenly they just stopped buying. The impetus and rationale for buying was to diversify their official reserves and reduce dependency on the US Dollar, and both have grown in importance.

HAI: Right. Now gold production has begun to slow down, and mine activity is on the decline. Do you think we’ve hit "peak gold"?

Jeffrey Nichols: It’s hard to say. I don’t think we’re going to see any big increase in gold mined supply at least for several years – probably five or 10 years, if we have a new wave of gold mine exploration and development. But it takes years and years to move from exploration to significant production.

There is exploration going on, and there is new mine development and new production from mines, some of which did not exist a few years ago. But it’s merely offsetting the erosion in production and the depletion of existing mines.

A lot of South Africa is that way: South Africa went from the world’s biggest producer of gold to way down on the list. And it’s going to continue shrinking. Because in South Africa, you have not only a depletion of ore reserves and the need to go deeper and deeper, which makes it more expensive, but you also have labor issues. You have rising electricity and energy costs, and actually insufficient supplies of electricity for the mining industry. The country hasn’t kept pace in developing power sources, so there are periodical electrical shortages and outages. Unions which have much greater power than ever before are demanding higher and higher wages and other benefits – maybe rightly so, but it makes every ounce of gold that much more expensive to mine.

HAI: Meaning miners will just go elsewhere instead.

Jeffrey Nichols: So I think at best, gold’s primary supply – mining production – will plateau over the next few years. Maybe it will go up a little bit, but not enough to matter from a world market supply-and-demand point of view. But it’s possible that we’ll see big discoveries. It’s possible that those big discoveries five or 10 or 15 years from now will result in significant increases in mine production, but not for many years.

But to say that we’re never going to see big increases again I think is a mistake. For one thing, I expect much higher Gold Prices in the future. Not just $1500, but multiples of that. I think in the future the average of the notional long-term Gold Price is going to be much higher than anybody imagined. I don’t think we’re ever going to see gold below $1000 again.

And those higher Gold Prices will make gold mining more effective than it has been in the recent past years.

Buying Gold – now easy, safe and cost-effective at world No.1 BullionVault

Tagged with:
Oct 04

The inflation/deflation debate rages on. But why…?

The INFLATION/DEFLATION debate is now the ‘topic du jour’ and although we have discussed this issue in the past, we want to throw more light on this very important subject, writes Puru Saxena of PuruSaxena Wealth Management in Hong Kong, China, for the Daily Reckoning.

Today, many prominent economists (Nouriel Roubini, David Rosenberg and Paul Krugman) and fund managers (Bill Gross and Jeremy Grantham) are forecasting deflation and according to these folks, a deflationary contraction is now ‘baked in the cake’. In fact, these deflationists are extremely worried about the ongoing private-sector debt-deleveraging in the developed world and they are also concerned about the lack of aggregate demand in the industrialized nations. Bearing in mind these two factors, these prominent people believe that deflation is now almost guaranteed and inflation is out of the question.

On the other end of the spectrum, and in stark contrast to the deflationist camp, many prominent market participants (Paul Tudor Jones, John Paulson, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber and Peter Schiff) are now warning about high inflation or even hyperinflation. According to these people, the large fiscal deficits and massive debt overhang almost guarantee runaway inflation.

It goes without saying that such conflicting views are extremely strange when you consider that all these highly experienced and successful people are reviewing the same economic data! Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as far as we are concerned, deflation is an urban myth and the global economy will have to contend with very high inflation.

It is our conjecture that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon and willing policymakers have the ability to create inflation. Now, before we delve any further, we want to make it clear that inflation is an increase in the supply of money and debt. Conversely, deflation is a decrease in the supply of money and debt.

Furthermore, it is critical to understand that an increase in the general price level is a consequence of inflation and a decrease in the general price level is a consequence of deflation. Most importantly, despite what you may hear elsewhere, you should keep in mind that a booming economy (operating at maximum capacity) is not a pre-requisite for inflation.

Now, if you reside in the deflation camp and believe that inflation cannot occur in a weak economic environment, you need to visit Zimbabwe and meet Mr. Mugabe who will explain how you can create hyper-inflation at a time when a nation is facing an economic depression! Whether you like it or not, Zimbabwe’s hyper-inflationary saga clearly shows that despite a huge output gap, surging unemployment and a bankrupt economy, reckless policymakers can succeed in creating massive inflation.

Look – we do acknowledge the fact that the economies of the developed world are struggling and they will probably remain weak for several years. We also accept the fact that the aggregate demand in these troubled economies will stay well below the available capacity (output gap). However, contrary to the deflation camp, we totally respect the money-creation abilities of the central banks. Accordingly, we firmly believe that in order to avoid sovereign defaults in the near-term, the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank will create unprecedented inflation.

Already, short-term interest-rates in the US and in Europe are at extremely low levels and real short-term interest-rates are negative. If such a loose monetary policy fails to create inflation, you can bet your bottom Dollar that these central-banks will unleash even more rounds of ‘Quantitative Easing’. Needless to say, such reckless monetary-inflation will dilute the existing money-stock even further and reduce the purchasing power of money. Okay, enough about the inflationary bias of the public-sector, let us now move on to the private-sector.

As far as the private-sector is concerned, you may recall that after the credit-bubble burst two years ago, commercial-bank credit in the US started to contract. After all, this debt repayment by the private-sector was a logical response to the crisis and for 17 months, commercial-bank credit declined by roughly US$700 billion. In fact, it was this private-sector debt contraction, which prompted many economists and investor to enter the deflation camp.

Whilst it is true that the private-sector in the US did experience deflation (contraction in debt) for a brief period of time, it is notable that this ‘austerity’ did not last very long! Figure 1 shows that US commercial-bank credit bottomed out earlier this year and since then, it has risen by roughly US$400 billion. So, it should be clear to all observers that the private-sector in the US is no longer de-leveraging and this is inflationary.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that even though commercial-bank credit in the US contracted between October 2008 and March 2010, during that period, America’s federal debt went through the roof!

Ironically, during the time-frame when American households and corporations were tightening their belts, the US-Treasury borrowed almost US$2 trillion; thereby stopping deflation in its track. The truth is that at no point during the recession did total debt (private-sector plus federal) in the US contract, so deflation did not occur. Now, it is conceivable that the private-sector in the US may abruptly start repaying its debt again. However, if such a debt-contraction occurs, Mr. Bernanke will create money like there is no tomorrow.

Today, America’s total liabilities (including social security, Medicare and Medicaid) are around 800% of GDP and federal debt has climbed above 90% of GDP (Figure 2). Given the fact that deflation will increase the real value of this debt, you do not have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that before the US government declares bankruptcy, it will desperately try and inflate its way out of trouble. By unleashing another ‘stimulus’, Mr. Obama’s administration will try and maintain nominal GDP growth, so that nominal incomes and tax receipts are sufficient to service the outstanding debt.

It is interesting to observe that in order to fund its spending binge, so far the US administration has succeeded in borrowing huge amounts of money at low interest-rates.

It is notable that up until now, demand for US Treasuries has been strong and the US administration has not had much trouble raising money. Perversely, in today’s volatile economic environment, US government debt is still viewed as a safe haven. However, every good thing comes to an end and investors’ perception could change at short-notice. When that happens and the bond market starts to focus on America’s ballooning deficits, demand for government-debt will dive. At that point, the Federal Reserve will have no option but to create new money so that it can lend it to the US Treasury. In fact, the Federal Reserve has already announced that it will use the proceeds from the sale of its mortgage-backed securities to buy US Treasuries. In our view, this is only the beginning and outright asset-monetisation will intensify over the following years.

Throughout history, periods of massive money-creation have always been inflationary and this time should be no different. Over the following months, if the economies of the developed world take a turn for the worse, you can be sure that the respective policymakers will respond by creating copious amounts of paper money.

If you still believe that deflation will prevail, perhaps you should review the table below, which highlights the inflation rates in various countries. It is noteworthy that the inflation rate depicted here for each nation is in fact the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which significantly understates the price increases within an economy. Let there be no doubt that the majority of government agencies make seasonal and hedonistic adjustments to bring down the level of the CPI. Regardless, you can see that despite such ‘feel good’ adjustments to bring down the reported ‘inflation’ rate, every nation (except Japan) is currently experiencing ‘inflation.’

Bearing in mind this compelling data, we are left wondering how anybody can get hoodwinked by the deflation hype!? Perhaps, the deflationists know something the rest of us do not, but at this point, hard data does not support the deflation thesis.

Given the inflationary environment we find ourselves in, we do not like cash or fixed-income securities. In our view, both cash and bonds will lose considerable real value over the following years and the ongoing strength in the government bond-market may turn out to be an exceptional selling opportunity. Conversely, we maintain our view that precious metals, energy and the stock markets of the fast growing developing markets in Asia will provide stellar returns in this inflationary environment.

Buy Gold at the lowest prices and store it – for $4 per month – in the very safest locations using world No.1 BullionVault today…

Tagged with:
Oct 02

Forget mining and
central banks. Here’s the single most important gold supply issue today…

SO IT WAS TOUGH yet
again to meet any gold "bears" at the London Bullion Market
Association’s annual conference last week, this year hosted in Berlin’s Hotel
Adlon.

The bullish arguments you know already no doubt. Low-to-zero
Western interest rates…plus a growing clamor to buy gold amongst Chinese
households (the Middle Kingdom’s demographics are more bullish still, as
Mitsubishi’s Matthew
Turner
showed)…make a compelling case for rising gold investment demand,
even without the risk of government-bond defaults, rising inflation or
continued losses on "mainstream" financial assets.

The Berlin conference had plenty more to say on those
stories too, as we’ll see below (and as you can see on the slides now freely published
on the LBMA’s
website
). But first, what of supply?

Well, all the gold ever produced in history came from a
mine, as Paul Burton of GFMS World Analyst
reminded the conference. But in the last decade, gold mining has failed so spectacularly
to meet the surge in demand, he could only question its "relevance" to
the market’s net outlook. Dollar gold prices quadrupled from
2000 to 2009, another speaker noted, yet annual mine output rose just 1%. And allowing
for the intervening slide in output, said Burton, gold mining output is now so
price inelastic, it took eight years of rising prices to produce any meaningful
blip in output (2009′s year-on-year increase of 7%).

Further output gains look unlikely, Burton went on, thanks
to the gold mining
sector’s "production lag" – both because of an "exploration
lag" (new investment only turned higher in 2003) and because new
discoveries of 1-million ounce deposits have collapsed regardless. The five
years to 2009 saw record-high levels of exploration spending, perhaps totaling
the previous 12 years added together (at least on BullionVault‘s skew-eyed reading of
Burton’s chart from the conference floor. See what you make of it on page 9 here). Yet
all told, GFMS’s best forecast is now for annual gold mining production to
decline by 13% between 2012 and 2019.

That other constant drip-drip of gold supply – the
"official sector" of central banks and outfits like the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) – also looks irrelevant for now, as Burton’s GFMS colleague
Philip Klapwijk
showed in his speech. European states are now holding, not selling their
reserves, but emerging markets (for now) remain mere ankle-biters compared to
the weight of private investment or jewelry demand each year. So net-net, said
the GFMS chairman, central bank activity looks "neutral", despite the
bullish picture for emerging-market demand he also laid out. More notably, and
"something we haven’t seen before", private-sector investment
holdings now outweigh central-bank gold reserves overall. Making investor
sentiment a key plank of any longer-term forecast.

Even without the end of central-bank sales, however, or the
failure of mine output to rise, "The single most important gold supply
issue is scrap," as John Reade of Paulson Europe said in his conference
summary. Re-selling unwanted jewelry "has gone mainstream" noted Jeffrey Rhodes,
CEO of INTL Commodities DMCC, becoming "socially acceptable" in a way
that using pawnbrokers to raise cash never was. Throw in gold coins, dental
bridges, bonding wire from microchips and any other supply "not from a
primary [ie mining] source", and scrap gold matched more than one fifth of
global gold mine output last year, up from just 7% a decade ago. Turkey has
overtaken India as the No.1 source of scrap gold supplies (217 tonnes in 2009,
equal to almost a tenth of world mining supply), but the most dramatic change
has come in the developed West, where "sophisticated electronic assay
equipment has seen the captain’s ball at your local golf club replaced with
gold buying parties," as Rhodes said.

Since 2005 alone, US scrap supply has more than doubled
according to data from GFMS Gold Survey, taking United States’ re-sales from fifth
to second position worldwide in 2009 with 124 tonnes. Italy’s re-sale market
moved from seventh to sixth with a tripling to 78 tonnes of scrap, and the UK
& Ireland have leapt 1505% from virtually nothing a decade ago to nearly 60
tonnes in 2009, bagging the world No.6 slot in the first-half of this year.
Throw in Germany and France, and four European nations make the top 10 scrap
supply nations by growth since 2000. In the first six months of this year,
scrap supplies from each of the US, Italy and UK & Ireland had all outpaced
India (the former No.1, remember), enabling scrap to become the "only
credible counter to investment buying." But should these massive supplies
of scrap in fact be overwhelming investment pressure on prices?

Since "investment buyers and scrap sellers are driven
by the same motivation of price expectations" as Rhodes reminded the LBMA
conference
, this price-elastic source of supply could threaten "a perfect
storm of selling once sentiment changes," he believes. But first, that
would require higher prices again, because (for now) even scrap-gold merchants
have turned bullish, he reported, capping flows to refineries in anticipation
of stronger gains ahead. And second (and more critically given the source of
the last few years’ real jump in scrap supplies), "Is the drawer
empty?" as Paulson Europe’s John Reade
wondered in his quick-fire recap before the conference adjourned.

Cash-strapped households, remember, can only sell their
unwanted gold bracelets once. How high would prices need to go before more
cherished pieces could be sent to the smelters? Apply the same question to
private gold investments in fact (ETF holdings have proven notably
"sticky", if not yet as "long-term means forever" as gold
coins), and you get to the nub of the "bubble or boom?" debate.
Because at some point, according to pretty much every speaker, the circumstances
now boosting global investment demand will recede – and with them, therefore,
the gold price will fall back as well. As we’ve already seen (in Part I),
the bubblicious frenzy needed to mark the top of spike remains plainly absent.
Leaving only the circumstances behind this current boom to consider.

"The current bull market has much deeper roots than the
credit crisis," the LBMA was reminded by former Blackrock head of natural
resources Graham
Birch
(now a farmer). Pointing to gold’s nadir of 1999, "continuous
disinvestment" was needed to keep prices down, and when Europe’s big
central banks agreed to cap their sales that September, it marked the start of
this rise. Roll on 11 years and 350%, however, and "Just because gold’s a
safe haven doesn’t mean it’s a cheap safe haven," Birch warned Berlin.
Which raises the question of cost and utility for new buyers today.

"I think people long gold should not be concerned
reading this slide," said John Reade in his summary, pointing to slide 14
of William White’s opening
keynote speech
. Chairman of the OECD’s Economic & Development Review
Committee, White had prefaced his 20 minutes of gloom-and-doom (salted with
uncertainty, fear and doubt) by saying that the OECD itself would certainly
disagree with everything he was about to say. Reade reminded the delegates that
White’s copyrighted sales-line should be "Scaring investors since
2003," as he accurately picked the shape of the bubble well ahead of
schedule, and hasn’t been proven wrong yet.

"Investors should be positioning for ‘tail
events’," White concluded. "But which ones?" Somewhere between
deflation, slow growth, de-coupling of Asia from the West, or a lurch into
rapid hyperinflation or a new series of bubbles fed by ultra-loose monetary
policy, "Is there room for gold in a world like this?" asked the former
Bank for International Settlements forecaster.

"The answer has got to be yes. But quite what
role…well, that’s for you to decide!"

A handful of private investors have begun to make that
decision, as Wolfgang
Wrzesniok-Rossbach
of the Heraeus refinery showed in detail. But the real
weight of money – the institutional mandates caring for your insurance and
pension savings – has scarcely bothered to buy gold ’til now, a point made at
length by both Shayne McGuire and Graham Birch on Monday morning. Across in
Asia, "People don’t need convincing on gold," said David Gornall of
Natixis, noting that 81% of global "bar hoarding" demand comes from
Asia, with buying amongst the "traditional buy-side countries" such
as India and Thailand – as well as the fast-growing world No.2 for gold demand,
China – continuing to grow despite record-high gold prices.
Even there, "the emergence of retail physical gold investors has resulted
in structural changes in distribution, product and buying behavior," as
Sunil Kashyap, managing director of Bank of Nova Scotia-ScotiaMocatta
explained. Yet all told (and absent the "bubble" idea which the
conference demolished time and again), what looks like a new paradigm might in
fact mean more a return to old patterns – globally – of gold buying and
hoarding…with a little "mobilization" thrown in by the scrap market
when times get tough.

India and Turkey, after all, have long been both top buyers
and scrap suppliers to the international gold market. Rising investment demand
here in the "rich West" (which, to repeat, remains well off a
"bubble" today) represents a simpler, unleveraged way of retaining
your savings than most Western households have grown used to. But gold was a
core chunk of private wealth holdings not so long ago, back before the
debt-fuelled boom we’ve enjoyed since WWII began – a boom which must now end
with "rebalancing" between the world’s debtors and creditors, as George Magnus of
UBS made plain Monday morning. The kind of dislocation required won’t be much
fun for either, which again looks good for gold demand, if not necessarily
prices.

All told today – and seeing the world’s fastest-growing
economies continue to buy and hold ever more gold as their wealth increases –
maybe US and European savers are only just getting back to the future. Either
way, that "bubble in gold" doesn’t exist. Not by a long way just yet.


The safest gold at the lowest prices – start with a free gram of Zurich bullion right now at BullionVault

Tagged with:
Sep 30

"Gold: Bubble or boom?" is a big concern for the world’s professional gold industry…

The BIG MONEY flows from the biggest trends, of course, writes Adrian Ash at BullionVault, just returned from the London Bullion Market Association’s 2010 Conference in Berlin.

But even the brightest people, and with the best of intentions, can struggle to see today what hindsight will say you could have banked on.

By the summer of 1922, for instance, you needed 100 of Germany’s paper Marks to buy one Gold Coin Mark, against which they were supposed to be equal. Yet the German Chancellor "would [still] accept no connection between the printing of money and its depreciation," notes Adam Ferguson in When Money Dies (London, 1975)…even  as the Weimar Republic’s hyperinflation pushed Berlin food prices well over 50% higher inside one month.

Indeed, "the opinion that the flood of paper is the real origin of the depreciation [in its purchasing power] is not only wrong but dangerously wrong," said the Vossische Zeitung newspaper. So by the time the worthless currency was abandoned 14 months later, it took one trillion paper Marks to buy one golden equivalent, and German banks "turned the Marks over to junk dealers by the ton" for recycling as scrap paper.

Who could’ve guessed?

Now, fast forward almost a century. Today the value of money (like its price versus gold) is at issue once more, and missing the big trend – inflation or deflation, commodities boom or depression – is a big worry for anyone serious about defending their savings. Over the last decade, gold prices have scarcely looked back in their rise from $252 to $1313 per ounce today. US equities, in contrast, have gone precisely nowhere, while commodities have certainly rallied, but hard assets (outside gold and silver) remain off their pre-Lehman tops of 2008. Treasuries and cash-in-the-bank can barely keep up with inflation, meantime, despite the official "core" US measure slipping below 1% per year. Housing looks like the "double-dip recession" cast in concrete.

Edging above $1300 this week, therefore, it’s little wonder that "Gold: Bubble or boom?" was the big theme (both on-stage and off) at this year’s London Bullion Market Association conference, held in Berlin. Besides dealing silver and the platinum-group metals, the LBMA’s membership is the world’s wholesale gold market – the refiners, assayers, vault operators, dealers, financiers and analysts who help move the metal from mine-head to retail production, whether jewelry manufacturers, dental suppliers, chip fabricators or Gold Coin mints. Very much centered in London (where the Association’s biggest bullion-bank members settle some $20 billion of gold trading between themselves each day), this odd little corner of the financial market well remembers the time before today’s current rally…a miserable two-decade run of falling gold prices, falling demand, and falling returns for the market’s suppliers. And no one wants to be late in seeing that the wind’s changed direction.

"When I started in precious metals in the early ’80s," said one head of metals trading to the 500+ delegates on Tuesday morning, "I understood that private clients would hold around 3% of their wealth in Gold Bars and coin…But over the next 20 years, those reserves were really liquidated, down to pretty much zero by 2000."

He’s just added to his own personal gold holdings, he said, buying Gold Bars first cast in 1980 for bank-teller sales to clients in the north-east of England. Yet the vast bulk of attendees – whilst bullish in their average $1450 price forecast for Sept. 2011, and with 60% believing gold would "perform well" even if deflation hit – are a long way from fully invested. A question thrown to the floor showed 74% of the bullion-market professionals meeting in Berlin keep between 0% and 10% of their own private wealth in precious metals. So either they’re shills who lack the courage of their convictions, or they prefer to separate where they keep their savings from where they earn their income, or gold has yet to capture the real investment dollar of even those people closest to it.

More broadly, current gold investment accounts for barely 0.5% of investable wealth worldwide, as Shayne McGuire of the Texas teachers’ pension fund (and now author of two books urging Americans to Buy Gold Now) showed on Monday, down from 3% in 1980 and far below the 5% of 1968 or 20% allocation gold received prior to the mid 1930s.

Thanks to the massive growth of other investment choices, "Gold has never played a smaller part in the global financial system than today," McGuire concluded, and while further gains aren’t guaranteed by the "weight of money argument" (as Philip Klapwijk of GFMS called it) the relative lack of investor hoarding hardly smacks of gold’s being a bubble. And while the Western world’s biggest central banks hold huge quantities of the stuff, the world’s biggest foreign exchange holders are all "underweight gold by any measure" (Philip Klapwijk again), with a growing desire at least to address their "overweight Dollars" position.

Indeed, "off-market" sales of Gold Bullion by European and even perhaps – one day in the far future – the US governments "may [in time] facilitate a transfer of bullion from West to East" the GFMS chairman said, reminding delegates of the gold transferred from the US to Europe to settle America’s balance of payments debts in the late 1950s and early ’60s. Meantime emerging economies continue to Buying Gold both "to diversify" their large US-Dollar holdings, and also as "catastrophe insurance", and private investors have similarly seen "the world’s markets flooded with cheap money," said Germany refinery Heraeus’s head of sales, Wolfgang Wrzesniok-Rossbach. His detailed (and best-in-show) presentation on Gold Bars, coins and other retail-investment products Monday afternoon noted the surge in European physical demand during the Greek deficit crisis of early 2010.

One driver is psychological, Wrzesniok-Rossbach said. Because "here in Germany, there is a great desire for security. We are the most over-insured people in the world." More historically, however, German households are asking "Haven’t we seen this before, in 1923…?"

Already scared by two stock-market crashes and a global property crash in the last decade alone, "There’s an entire generation of [Western] investors who may not want to trust governments or mainstream financial products," agreed Natixis bank’s head of precious metals (and LBMA vice-chairman) David Gornall on Tuesday morning. At several points during the global financial crisis, "The US Mint has been right at the limit of immediate physical supply," he noted, but that frenzy has since died down – even as the gold price has continued to rise. Together, that’s created a very un-bubblicious atmosphere on the trading floor.

"When the Gold Price broke new all-time highs [in early Sept.]," reported Steve Branton-Speak of Goldman Sachs, "volatility [in daily prices, measured on a rolling one-month basis] was at a 5-year low. When it then went through $1300, traders just shrugged and said ‘So, did you watch the game last night?’

"Compare that to the frenzy of gold trading we got when Bear Stearns and then Lehman Brothers failed," Branton-Speak continued, a point confirmed by both Gerry Schubert of ABN Amro (who restated the "lack of frantic activity or volume") and several of the traders I spoke to between presentations (and also in the bar of course).

"What looks like a massive boom in demand is actually very small…relatively insignificant," confirmed Jeremy East of Standard Chartered Bank, but gold keeps making headlines because it "punches above its weight in terms of significance."

Asked whether gold is now a bubble, East opted instead for "new paradigm – which is in fact a return to the old paradigm." Concurring with Shayne McGuire’s presentation on pension-fund holdings, Standard Chartered’s head of metals sees gold investment holdings only now starting to recover from the wipe-out caused by two decades of strong interest rates and economic growth between 1980 and 2000. This view, of gold not so much soaring to untold heights as simply returning to its former position as a key asset class ("Back to the future" as one oddly aggressive guy put it to me in the smoking lounge) might seem to downplay its gains. But consider why gold’s not always valued, said Graham Birch, former head of natural resources at Blackrock:

"You don’t need gold when…

  • Inflation is dead
  • Governments are benign
  • Taxes are low
  • Currencies are solid
  • Markets are booming…"

In other words, said Birch, "Nobody wants gold if market returns are high and don’t seem risky." Whereas today?

Part II to follow…

Tagged with:
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
preload preload preload