Wikinvest Wire

Bernanke speaks, dollar drops

Monday, December 07, 2009

For anyone wondering what was behind that late-day drop in the U.S. Dollar and the surge in nearly everything else - Fed chief Ben Bernanke was talking about the economy and monetary policy this afternoon in Washington, apparently squashing rumors that the central bank plans to raise interest rates sooner, rather than later, after Friday's labor report.


It looks as though the gold price jumped about $20 an ounce starting shortly after his speech began at 12PM EST and then another $10 in Asia. Thank God things are back to normal.

Those of you who keep track of this sort of thing might want to note this part of Bernanke's talk today where he asks himself whether he's going to cause higher inflation.
The answer is no; the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping inflation low and will be able to do so. In the near term, elevated unemployment and stable inflation expectations should keep inflation subdued, and indeed, inflation could move lower from here ... We are confident that we have all the tools necessary to withdraw monetary stimulus in a timely and effective way.
Hopefully he'll be better at seeing inflation coming than he was at seeing the housing and credit bubble forming and the collapse of financial markets last year.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Risk aversion can be a humbling experience

John Hussman's last two weekly commentaries should be considered "must reading" for anyone with any money in the stock market who still thinks they're doing anything remotely resembling Benjamin Graham style "investing".

Last week's Reckless Myopia was his mea culpa for being so risk averse this year.

From a long-term perspective, my record is very comfortable. But clearly, I was wrong about the extent to which Wall Street would respond to the ebb-and-flow in the economic data – particularly the obvious and temporary lull in the mortgage reset schedule between March and November 2009 – and drive stocks to the point where they are not only overvalued again, but strikingly dependent on a sustained economic recovery and the achievement and maintenance of record profit margins in the years ahead.

I should have assumed that Wall Street's tendency toward reckless myopia – ingrained over the past decade – would return at the first sign of even temporary stability. The eagerness of investors to chase prevailing trends, and their unwillingness to concern themselves with predictable longer-term risks, drove a successive series of speculative advances and crashes during the past decade – the dot-com bubble, the tech bubble, the mortgage bubble, the private-equity bubble, and the commodities bubble. And here we are again.
Well, clearly, "reckless myopia" is what follows monetary myopia, a condition that exists within the central banks around the world and, in this decade, it's hard to find fault with those who are doing exactly what the Fed economists want them to do - embrace risk.

This week in Credit Crises Generally Require Multi-Year Adjustments he expands on his prior musings and states the obvious, something that probably isn't all that obvious to most people, certainly not many on Wall Street.
Over the past decade, the stature of the market as an effective discounting mechanism has gradually eroded. The observation and analysis of potential risks – though essential to long-term investing and loss avoidance – is far less actionable than one might expect. Investors will evidently speculate as long they have dice in their hands and the casino is not visibly on fire. In hindsight, less concern about the eventuality of a second wave of credit losses (which I still fully expect), might have allowed us to capture a larger portion of the recent advance, at least moving our year-to-date returns into two digits.
The choice of words here is quite interesting - "Investors will evidently speculate" - because it has long been my suspicion that most people who buy stocks don't have a clue whether they are investing or speculating, or that there's any distinction between the two.

Concerns such as valuations, discounting mechanisms, and the like all seem to have been subverted by CNBC proclamations that XYZ Corp. just beat earnings by a penny, something that seems to happen every quarter, through good times and bad.

Over the last twenty five years (with a few notable interruptions earlier in the decade) the world has been conditioned to think of the stock market as something that simply goes up - the place where people put a pile of money so that, someday, they can withdrawal an even bigger pile of money.

Turns out, it doesn't work that way all the time, yet, you wouldn't know that from the renewed equity market fervor this year and John finds that puzzling.
This is something of a personal struggle, because I see my main fiduciary duty as focusing on long-term performance and avoiding major losses where possible. Short-term speculative participation is often what gets sacrificed, but that can be very uncomfortable – especially over the short-term.
...
Again, however, there is undoubtedly some middle ground that we can exploit while still keeping a tight rein on significant risks. I have to keep reminding myself that Wall Street, as a rule, doesn't seem to share all of our fiduciary concerns.
All of this might be a lot easier for Hussman to deal with if not for the fact that Money Magazine crowned him the Best Bear Market Money Manager Around in April of this year as investors of all stripes were licking their wounds.

If I'm correctly recalling the net assets figures from earlier this year, his flagship Hussman Strategic Growth Fund (HSGFX) has more than doubled in size in recent months to over $5 billion, however, the year to-date gains stand at around five or six percent.

It turns out that risk aversion can be a humbling experience.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Jeff Merkley does not ♥ Ben Bernanke

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is still undecided as to whether or not Fed chief Ben Bernanke deserves another four years at the helm of the nation's central bank - skip to about the 1:45 mark for details.


... something about a conflict of interest where the head of the nation's banking cartel failed miserably in his consumer protection duties, begging the question, "What would really expect the fox guarding the hen house to do? Guard it?"

Oddly, among all of Bernanke's other transgressions that were discussed in gory detail last week during his confirmation hearing, this one barely got a mention.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

What does Bloomberg have against gold?

Following on the heels of David Pauly's inane commentary on the rising gold price last week as documented here, gold bashing shows up in the "straight news" section of Bloomberg this morning in this story by Nicholas Larkin and Millie Munshi.

Gold Can’t Beat Checking Account 30 Yrs After Peak
Gold’s best year in three decades has yet to match the returns of an interest-bearing checking account for anyone who bought the most malleable of metals coveted for at least 5,000 years during the last peak in January, 1980.

Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.

“You give up a lot of return for the privilege of sleeping well at night,” said James Paulsen, who oversees about $375 billion as chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis. “If the world falls into an abyss, gold could be a store of value. There is some merit in that, but you can end up holding too much gold waiting for the world to end. From my experience, the world has not ended yet.”
Yes, it's easy to "data-pick" in order to find support for any notion that you have in your head, whether it's that gold is a lousy investment, stocks are a lousy investment, real estate is a lousy investment...

Just establish a premise and go back as far as you need to go and you'll be able to rationalize nearly anything in today's financial world.

The interesting thing about the January $850 gold price, however, one that Larkin and Munshi probably haven't got a clue about, is that gold traded at $850 an ounce for less than a day.

It closed at over $800 an ounce in London on only two days - January 18th and 21st, 1980 - and closed at over $700 on only four days.

The average price in 1980 was not much over $600, yet, that doesn't stop people from saying, "Gold has only gained x percent since its high of $850 in 1980" which, these days, is still a lot better than saying how much it lost, something that owners of gold had to listen to up until just a couple years ago.

This happens with the Nasdaq too where the index averaged less than 4,000 nine years ago in 2000 and, in my humble opinion, anyone who makes comparisons against the 5,000+ Nasdaq peak is just as foolish as those who talk about $850 gold in 1980.

Of course, for anyone who has had money to invest, the more recent history should be much more important than anything from the Reagan administration - say, two years, five years, ten years, or any other similar time span - but, apparently not to Larkin and Munshi who, for some reason, seem fixated on the checking account comparison.
Before today, the metal had risen 32 percent this year, the most since 1979.

Buy-and-hold investors may not have done so well. One dollar put into a U.S. checking account in 1983 would be worth at least $1.92 today, based on annual average interest rates from Bankrate.com. The Federal Reserve target rate from 1980 to 1982 was 8.5 percent to 20 percent. Banks were paying 5 percent on the accounts in January 1981, according to a report in the New York Times.
Wow. A dollar ninety two.

One dollar put into gold in 1983 - when the gold price averaged just over $400 an ounce - would be worth about $2.70 today.

The point being ... dunno.

In fact, the "checking account beats gold comparison" blared in the title only works when the price of gold was over $638 (somebody check my math here) and that only happened on about 40 or 50 days back in 1980.

What a strange, weak argument...

What follows is an odd transformation from gold basher to gold bull, what probably has thousand of readers like myself scratching their heads at this point (as you might have discerned from my commentary above, I was all geared up for more bashing of the basher at this point - right when they turn bullish).
Those who bought gold when it reached a two-decade low of $251.95 in August 1999 have seen a 387 percent return, more than four times the 82 percent gain in Treasuries. An investment in the S&P 500 lost 0.4 percent through the end of last month. Interest on checking accounts shrank to 0.14 percent this year from 0.89 percent in 1999.

Since the S&P 500 peaked in October 2007, investors in the index lost 25 percent, holders of Treasuries made 16 percent and gold buyers are up 64 percent.

“There are people that just stayed in very conservative investments in cash and government bonds,” said Larry Hatheway, global head of asset allocation at UBS AG in London, who recommends investors hold about 1 percent of their assets in bullion. “Surely they would have been a lot better off being in gold.”

Buying bullion at $35 when U.S. President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971 would have given a 35-fold return, about the same performance as the S&P 500.

Gold will average $1,070 next year, according to the median in a Bloomberg survey of 19 analysts. The metal may jump to $2,000 in the next five years, said HSBC’s Morris. Ian Henderson, manager of $5 billion at JPMorgan Chase & Co., said he’s adding to his gold-related holdings because of “the momentum behind it.” Jim Rogers, the investor who predicted the start of the commodities rally in 1999, has said bullion will surge to at least $2,000 over the next decade.

“Our sense is that this bubble is more at the beginning stages than on the brink of collapse,” said Thomas Wilson, head of the institutional and private client group at Brinker Capital in Berwyn, Pennsylvania, which manages about $8.5 billion.

Touradji Capital Management LP, the New York hedge fund founded by Paul Touradji, bought 2.23 million shares of Barrick Gold Corp., the world’s biggest producer, during the third quarter, according to a Nov. 13 filing with regulators. The stake, Touradji’s biggest equity holding, is worth $95 million.

Paulson & Co., the hedge-fund firm run by billionaire Paulson, will start a gold fund on Jan. 1 investing in mining companies and bullion-related derivatives, according to a person familiar with the plan. Einhorn, who runs New York-based Greenlight Capital Inc., told a presentation in New York in October that he’s buying gold to bet against the dollar.

Paul Tudor Jones, in an Oct. 15 letter to clients of his Tudor Investment Corp., said gold is “just an asset that, like everything else in life, has its time and place. And now is that time.”

Central banks will become net buyers of gold this year for the first time since 1988, according to New York-based researcher CPM Group. India, China, Russia, Sri Lanka and Mauritius have all added to their reserves.
They end up noting that gold is a poor inflation hedge and there's no inflation on the horizon right now, so they eventually return to the well-known script that naively excludes the possibility that investors of all stripes are losing confidence in paper money in general.

All in all, after the title - Gold Can't Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After the Peak - this is one of the more curious gold commentaries that have crossed my computer screen in some time.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Geithner: Goldman Sachs would have failed

In a Bloomberg interview late last week, now hosted over at the Huffington Post, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says that none of the big banks or Wall Street firms would have survived last year if the government had simply let the crisis run its course.
IMAGE

Click on the image to go to the embedded video at HuffPost

This is in contrast to claims made by Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein in a Vanity Fair interview that the Vampire Squid would have made it through without any help at all.

Here's the excerpt:
HUNT: You were the head of the New York Fed, right in the middle of the crisis a little over a year ago. Some Goldman Sachs executives have recently said their firm would have been okay without the Federal assistance and the Federal Reserve and others last year. Is that your view?

GEITHNER: My view is this.

HUNT: Did Goldman Sachs need the Federal government fourteen months ago?

GEITHNER: The entire U.S. financial system and all the major firms in the country and even small banks across the country were at that moment at the middle of a classic run - a classic bank run.

HUNT: So they would have been at risk (inaudible)?

GEITHNER: I think the system was at risk and the big institutions were not - none of them would have survived a situation in which we had let that fire try to burn itself out.
Maybe Goldman ought to double, triple, or quadruple that $500 million image-rebuilding donation to the rest of America that they recently extracted from their bonus pool.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Monday morning links

TOP STORIES
Big Paydays for Rescuers in the Crisis - NY Times
Administration to slash bailout cost estimate - AP
BIS: Low Interest Rates Can Risk Financial Stability - Bloomberg
Congress Is the Drunk at the Fed’s Punch Bowl - Lowenstein, Bloomberg
Educators have the wrong number in answering budget crisis - LA Times
Dismal Scientists Miss the Optimism in Jobs Data - Hassett, Bloomberg
Bankers had cashed in before the music stopped - FT
Malpass Spot-On - Noland, Prudent Bear
The $700 billion man - Washington Post

Get these links delivered to your inbox every day.

MARKETS/INVESTING
Dollar jump puts oil below $75 - Reuters
Gold tarnished by dollar run - CNN/Money
Gold bugs cite India, silver, miners as causes for hope - MarketWatch
Buffalo Bullion Coins Sold Out, Others Suspended or Limited - Coin News Update
Credit Crises Generally Require Multi-Year Adjustments - Hussman Funds
John Paulson Returns to Earth - BusinessWeek
Why The Big Drop In Gold? - Zero Hedge

ECONOMY
The Jobless Rate May Have Hit Its Peak - NY Times
Jobless Professionals Vie for Holiday Sales Work - ABC News
Quarter of workforce could become temps as contract work grows - USA Today
Deputies witness recession's toll as evictions increase - SJ Mercury News
In economic woes, firms count on temp workers - SF Gate

INTERNATIONAL
Banks face fresh Dubai debt fears - TimesOnline
European banks to face capital demands - FT AlphaVille
Gross, Roubini Weigh Dueling Chinese Bubbles - Pesek, Bloomberg
Dubai government ring-fences key assets, shares tumble - Reuters
China monetary policy takes the spotlight amid bubble fears - MarketWatch
China to Add Flexibility to Economic Policies, Pare Investment - Bloomberg
Hong Kong finance chief warns of asset-price bubble - MarketWatch
Britain risks falling out of world's top 10 economies - Telegraph

REAL ESTATE
Why Treasury Needs a Plan B for Mortgages - NY Times
Homeowner bailout plan may not stop US housing market crash - TimesOnline
Moody’s Links Option ARM, Subprime Performance - Housing Wire
Millions More At-Risk of Default Than Most Think - Mark Hanson

FED/TREASURY/BANKING
Geithner: “none…would have survived” - Reuters
No Escape From TARP for U.S. Banks Choking on Real Estate Loans - Bloomberg
Three Strikes on Ben Bernanke: AIG, Goldman Sachs & BAC/TARP - The Big Picture
The great American credit contraction rolls on - Reuters

INTERESTING
Best Ever Christmas Decorations - Poor and Stupid
Yellowstone a petri dish for climate change - LA Times
Porn star Holly Sampson is seventh woman linked to Tiger Woods - Daily News
Wanted: Mich. bank robber with 'offensive breath' - AP

###

Read more...

Is Neel Kashkari the new Ted Kaczynski?

Sunday, December 06, 2009

In case you were wondering what ever happened to Neel Kashkari, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's hand-picked TARP fund manager (a.k.a. Mini-Me), the Washington Post provides this update with the accompanying photo that immediately reminded me of the Unabomber heading back to his Montana cabin, looking to escape from the world.
IMAGE That's apparently what Kashkari has been doing lately, so, if you work in the mail room at a big bank and get a suspicious looking package in the mail with a postmark anywhere near Truckee, California - a place that is not too different than Kazcynski's Montana digs - you might want to alert the authorities.

Even in his early-retirement, Kashkari continues to be an easy target ... sorry ... that's not his house, just a cabin out back that he's apparently been building to keep busy.

All joking aside, you have to feel for the guy and the WaPo report by Laura Blumenfeld really does a nice job of contrasting his current and former life with some surprising revelations of the reality of working in the nation's capital.

"It felt like I got jumped."

Whack.

"Like three guys beat the crap out of me."

Whack, whack.

The massive block of sugar pine breaks, the crack bouncing off the mountain.

Kashkari is recalling his testimony before Congress, while splitting logs to feed the stove for the winter. He is down to his last two chain-sawed trees.

"Members of Congress will tell you they agree with you, and then in public they blast you. I understand their anger, but the playing at politics when so much was at stake -- "

Whack. The ax blade flies off its wooden handle.

As interim assistant secretary for financial stability, Kashkari had to defend multibillion-dollar cash injections in hearings on Capitol Hill. Constituents were losing their jobs and homes; Kashkari became the object of free-floating recession rage. He sat for five oversight hearings, whose headlines ran from "Lawmakers Slam Kashkari!" to "Congressman Calls Kashkari 'A Chump.' " In one House session, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) opened with a round of criticism, and then a Republican finished him off, suggesting that Kashkari resign.

"I wasn't prepared for their hostility."
The whole thing is definitely worth reading, especially if you like the outdoors and used to spend nearly all your waking hours indoors working with people whose motives you always questioned, but not publicly.

Trained as an engineer (BS and MS), for some reason Kashkari then decided to go get an MBA from Wharton before getting sucked into the whirlwind that is Goldman Sachs and the rest, as they say, is history.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Jim Grant on the "faith-based" dollar

Ron Paul's new book End the Fed should show up under the Christmas tree in our house sometime in the weeks ahead and maybe that's true in Jim Grant's house as well since it doesn't sound as though he's aware of what the Texas Congressman really has in mind for the central bank in this otherwise fine WSJ commentary about the U.S. currency.

Ben S. Bernanke doesn't know how lucky he is. Tongue-lashings from Bernie Sanders, the populist senator from Vermont, are one thing. The hangman's noose is another. Section 19 of this country's founding monetary legislation, the Coinage Act of 1792, prescribed the death penalty for any official who fraudulently debased the people's money. Was the massive printing of dollar bills to lift Wall Street (and the rest of us, too) off the rocks last year a kind of fraud? If the U.S. Senate so determines, it may send Mr. Bernanke back home to Princeton. But not even Ron Paul, the Texas Republican sponsor of a bill to subject the Fed to periodic congressional audits, is calling for the Federal Reserve chairman's head.
While the contents of Paul's new book are unknown to me for at least another 19 days, based on the title, my guess is there's a death sentence in there for the nation's central bank which, while it may spare his life, would certainly make the Fed chief feel as though he were dying.

Ahh well. Enough nitpicking. This is another fine op-ed piece by the long-time editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer that should add to the growing concern about just where the Federal Reserve has taken us all over the last 96 years, the last two years in particular.

Some highlights:
In ancient times, the solidus circulated far and wide. But it was a tangible thing, a gold coin struck by the Byzantine Empire. Between Waterloo and the Great Depression, the pound sterling ruled the roost. But it was convertible into gold—slip your bank notes through a teller's window and the Bank of England would return the appropriate number of gold sovereigns. The dollar is faith-based. There's nothing behind it but Congress.

But now the world is losing faith, as well it might. It's not that the dollar is overvalued—economists at Deutsche Bank estimate it's 20% too cheap against the euro. The problem lies with its management. The greenback is a glorious old brand that's looking more and more like General Motors.

You get the strong impression that Mr. Bernanke fails to appreciate the tenuousness of the situation—fails to understand that the pure paper dollar is a contrivance only 38 years old, brand new, really, and that the experiment may yet come to naught. Indeed, history and mathematics agree that it will certainly come to naught. Paper currencies are wasting assets. In time, they lose all their value. Persistent inflation at even seemingly trifling amounts adds up over the course of half a century. Before you know it, that bill in your wallet won't buy a pack of gum.
Oh, just go read the whole thing - it's in the free section of the Journal.

It's a wonderful romp through the history of the dollar in a way that only Grant can do as exemplified by this characterization of the Federal Reserve:
It would save us from "deflation" by generating a sweet taste of inflation (not too much, just enough). And it would perform these feats of macroeconomic management by pushing a single interest rate up or down.

It was implausible enough in the telling and has turned out no better in the doing.
I wonder if Ben Bernanke reads stuff like this...

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Oil and gold contest update #2

Saturday, December 05, 2009

This is update #2 for the year-end oil and gold contest with last week's relatively small move down and to the left belying the volatility that was seen in recent days.IMAGE That's Ted S. snuggled up close to the recently added yellow diamond representing the closing prices for oil and gold yesterday - $75.47 a barrel and $1,161 an ounce, respectively.

Ted's combined error of about two percent (less than two percent when using the square root of the sum of the squares - or something like that - under the "Diff. Alt." heading in the table below) looks pretty darn good right about now, the only problem being that there are four weeks left to go. Something tells me that, by the end of the year, prices will be nowhere near Ted's guesses, especially for gold - what direction they'll head is anyone's guess.

The rest of the top ten are shown below with RA, CS, and PR not far back from the top spot.
IMAGE
Yours truly is in position #32 out of about 70 or so, far away from the action at the moment, but also far better than the performance last time around.

Recall that the winner receives a free one-year subscription to Iacono Research where the model portfolio had a modest setback of 0.3 percent last week but maintains a quite respectable gain of almost 21 percent for the year.

###

To learn more about investing in natural resources using commonly traded ETFs,
stocks, and mutual funds, see this description at Iacono Research.
IMAGE
For subscription details, click here.


Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Interesting jobs data point for the weekend

With yesterday's labor report showing a decline of 11,000 in nonfarm payrolls and with upward revisions of more than 150,000 to the payrolls data from prior months, some people are, understandably, thinking that the unemployment rate might soon be going down.

A natural question that some might be asking this weekend is, "Based on the experience of the last two 'jobless recoveries', when might the jobless rate be expected to fall"?

Well, if past is precedent, the news isn't good.

After the last recession in 2001, nonfarm payrolls first produced a positive number in June of 2002 but, from that time on, the unemployment rate rose for a full 12 months, from 5.8 percent to a peak of 6.3 percent in 2003.

The peak in the jobless rate came at around the same time that nonfarm payrolls posted their last decline for the cycle, a loss of 42,000 in July.

Contrary to what some might believe, once nonfarm payrolls produce a positive number, they don't just keep climbing. In fact, back in 2002 and 2003, from the time of that first plus sign in front of the payrolls number until the last minus sign one year later, there was a net decline of 506,000 jobs.

The jobs picture wasn't much better after the 1990-1991 recession.

After the first post-recession payrolls increase in June of 1991, job growth was much steadier than after the 2001 recession but, here too, the unemployment rate continued to rise for an entire year, in this case, by almost a full percentage point from 6.9 percent to 7.8 percent.

Based on the last two recessions, we're still more than a year away from a sustained decline in the jobless rate.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Talk about bad timing

Friday, December 04, 2009

Michelle Obama may be taking a closer look at the President's past and future travel itinerary after seeing the cover of the current issue of Golf Digest (as reported at Yahoo! Sports).IMAGE I must say, I'm a bit disappointed that the Nike slogan "Just Do It" isn't getting more play with the recent (and still expanding, apparently) Tiger Woods excitement. US Magazine reports that Mr. and Mrs. Woods are now undergoing intense marriage counseling.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

An alternative view of the rising gold price

Here's a commentary about the recently rising gold price that sounds a bit more credible on Friday than on Wednesday, but, after taking it all in, it still sounds pretty naive to me.

Gold Buyers Nip at Ultimate Emotional Experience: David Pauly

Why is it no matter how much the world advances intellectually and technologically, people keep speculating on gold?

John Neff, who managed Vanguard Group’s Windsor Fund for three decades, once offered this take on the precious metal: “It’s not an investment, it’s an emotional experience.”

Emotions have been running high. Spot gold prices have risen 44 percent in the past 12 months. Gold futures reached a record $1,196.80 an ounce in New York last week before closing at $1,175.50 on Nov. 27.
Why do people speculate on gold (apparently you can't just buy or invest in the stuff)?

Because governments own the printing presses and the currency isn't backed by anything other than faith in governments to act responsibly.

For many people, it's as simple as that.

The fact that the metal keeps going up in price now that we've exited the late-1990s nirvana of perpetually rising asset prices, fueled by credit creation and government money printing the likes of which the planet has never seen before, shouldn't be all that surprising.

It's an interesting read to get a better understanding of how some still view precious metals today in a world that is maybe a little less intellectually and technologically advanced than they think it is.

Naturally, readers are reminded that gold pays no interest or dividends - kind of like savings accounts these days - and he wonders why the U.S. doesn't just sell it's useless stash.
Gold has to keep rising if current buyers are to get any return. Direct investments in gold pay no interest. Some folks buy gold-mining stocks that pay dividends, but those are subject to declines in the companies’ other mining businesses.

People are speculating in gold because the dollar has been falling and they think gold will hold its value. Others buy gold out of fear the money created as the U.S. props up its banking system will lead to inflation. Others want the metal simply because it’s increasing in value.

Gold’s latest boom offers the U.S. government an opportunity to capitalize on the emotions of speculators and sell off its own horde of the metal.

At today’s prices, the Federal Reserve holds about $300 billion in gold. The Fed’s balance sheet values the holding at just $11 billion, but this is based on a price of about $42 a troy ounce, the so-called official U.S. government price established in 1973.

Something Useful

In these times of trillion-dollar budget deficits, $300 billion may not seem like much. Still, that money could pay some of the costs of any health-care bill that comes out of Congress. Or it could help pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. probably would have to sell its gold a bit at a time so it didn’t cause a slump in prices, partially defeating the purpose of the exercise. U.S. holdings account for 27 percent of the gold held as reserves by central banks.

On second thought, speculators are so hungry for gold, selling by the U.S. may not scare them.

The government, of course, seems content to let its gold investment lay in storage. Some economists would be shocked at the idea of getting rid of the country’s stockpile, which they see as backing for the dollar. Do they think China and Japan buy hundreds of billions of dollar-denominated Treasury securities because America owns some gold? They buy because they’re sure the U.S.’s credit is good.

Trade Tool

Gold long ago was used by nations to balance their trade books. When the U.S. bought more abroad than it sold, it paid the difference in gold.

It’s comical to think of that today. Once the U.S. economy gurgles again, the Fed’s $300 billion in gold would only cover about six months of the nation’s trade deficit.

European and Asian companies don’t collect dollars for their goods because they expect a payoff in gold but because they think the currency has its own value.

Neff, 78, still manages money for himself and his family in suburban Philadelphia. “I’m still in the hunt,” he says.

The hunt has never taken the veteran investor anywhere near gold. While the experience has been exhilarating lately, “I’m not attracted to it,” Neff says.

If only others were so sensible.
What's really comical today is to consider how dangerous global imbalances have become in a world full of paper money and pegged exchange rates where these imbalances can just continue to grow and grow until something really, really bad happens.

Of course, lately, nations with floating exchange rates just seem to blow up after a while.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Geithner says the dollar is not going down

One day and a better-than-expected jobs report makes all the difference as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sounded a lot crazier yesterday when, at about the 2:50 mark below, he disagreed with the idea that the U.S. dollar was going down.


With Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke now facing surprising difficulty in getting confirmed for another four-year term, the calls for Geithner's resignation are sure to grow, particularly if Wall Street bonuses are meted out as planned and unemployment remains high as the 2010 election nears. Elected officials will no doubt look for a "pound of flesh" to please their unhappy constituents who will increasingly feel that Wall Street is getting the better end of the deal than Main Street during the current economic recovery.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

An impressive "Greenspan mess" sighting

Following on the heels of yesterday's stellar performance by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) who mentioned the former Fed chairman's name 12 times in his prepared remarks during current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearing (and not in a good way) comes the spotting of this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that qualifies as one of the most impressive "Greenspan mess" sightings I've come across.

He supplied ample liquidity when it was most needed last autumn, and he has certainly been willing to pull out every last page of the central banker playbook. If some of those decisions were mistakes, the conditions the Fed faced were extraordinary. Anyone at the helm would have made calls that in hindsight he'd regret.

The real problem is Mr. Bernanke's record before the panic, with its troubling implications for a second four years. When George W. Bush nominated the Princeton economist four years ago, we offered the backhanded compliment that at least he'd have to clean up the mess that the Alan Greenspan Fed had made. That mess turned out to be bigger than even we thought, but we also didn't know then how complicit Mr. Bernanke was in Mr. Greenspan's monetary decisions.

Now we do, thanks to the release of the Federal Open Market Committee transcripts from 2003. They show (see "Bernanke at the Creation," June 23, 2009) that Mr. Bernanke was the intellectual architect of the decision to keep monetary policy exceptionally easy for far too long as the economy grew rapidly from 2003-2005. He imagined a "deflation" that never occurred, ignored the asset bubbles in commodities and housing, dismissed concerns about dollar weakness, and in the process stoked the credit mania that led to the financial panic.
Obviously, the Journal is not in favor of another Bernanke term, recommending instead a "hard money" chairman to clean up what will, in the fullness of time, most likely be referred to someday as "The Mess That Bernanke Made".

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Payrolls down 11K, jobless rate to 10.0%

The Labor Department reported that U.S. employers cut only 11,000 jobs in November, the smallest decline since the recession began in December of 2007, and the unemployment rate fell modestly from 10.2 percent to 10.0 percent.
IMAGE Job losses for prior months saw substantial positive revisions. The loss of 219,000 positions originally reported for the month of September improved to -139,000 and the October decline of 190,000 jobs was revised to -111,000.

The unemployment rate improved from the 26-year low reported in October and even the broader measure of "underemployment" - including discouraged workers and those settling for part-time work instead of full-time - was better, falling from last month's all-time high of 17.5 percent to 17.2 percent.

The average work week rose from a record low of 33.0 hours to 33.2 hours and average hourly earnings increased, all signs that employers are getting more out of current employees before hiring new ones.

Temporary jobs within the Professional and Business Services category were the driving force behind the better-than-expected headline nonfarm payrolls number, temporary help accounting for 52,400 of the overall increase of 86,000 for this category. And, as usual, the health care and education sectors added jobs, some 40,000 last month.
IMAGE Elsewhere, job losses continued, Manufacturing down 41,000, Trade, Transportation, and Utilities down 34,000, and Construction down 27,000. Within the trade category, retail employment fell by 14,500, not a positive sign for a recovery in consumer spending.

One of the better indicators of the state of mind of your typical American consumer is their willingness to eat out and, hence, changes to employment in the food service sector. Here too, the news was not good as almost 4,000 fewer workers were found in the food services and drinking establishment subcategory.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Friday morning links

TOP STORIES
Jobs summit underscores dilemma - Washington Post
Bernanke Says Fed ‘Should Have Done More’ - NY Times
Japan's Hirano says no plan to sell US Treasuries - Bloomberg
Republican To Place Additional Hold On Bernanke Confirmation - FDL
Bernanke’s Booby Prize Waits Behind Door No. 1 - Bloomberg
Bernanke defends record in bid for second term - Reuters
The repercussions of Dubai: Dishdashed - Economist
How much should Goldman pay Blankfein? - Reuters
A tale of two unemployment rates - Economist

Get these links delivered to your inbox every day.

MARKETS/INVESTING
Oil skids below $76 ahead of US jobs report - AP
Gold drops as traders lock in gains - MarketWatch
China wary of gold 'bubble’ danger after quietly doubling its reserves - Telegraph
Investors last month continued to pull money out of stock funds - MarketWatch
Investment guru urges US dollar exodus - ABC News
The Four Scenarios For 2010 - Zero Hedge

ECONOMY
Payrolls Fell Only 11,000 Last Month, Jobless Rate at 10% - CNBC
U.S. Retail Chains Report a Lackluster November - NY Times
Hyperinflation is the least of our worries - MarketWatch
Near-Zero Rates Are Hurting the Economy - WSJ
Productivity revised down, still best in 6 years - MarketWatch
ISM Services Index Unexpectedly Contracts - Breifing.com

INTERNATIONAL
Economics focus: Default lines - Economist
German central bank says recovery on track - AP
Battling deflation in Japan: Waking up to reality - Economist
Hatoyama to Unveil Stimulus Plan as Economy Weakens - Bloomberg
China Blames Foreign Banks for Derivatives Losses - Bloomberg
South Korea revises economic growth upward - MarketWatch
Risk after Dubai: When sovereign doesn't mean safe - Economist
Switzerland's 300 richest lose $10 billion in 2009 - AP

REAL ESTATE
Loans Deteriorate 3 to 1 in October: LPS - Housing Wire
An Interview with a Commercial Real Estate Insider - Pragmatic Capitalist
Owner fears for house waiting for permanent mortgage modification - MarketWatch
N.H. foreclosures continue to rise - Concord Monitor

FED/TREASURY/BANKING
Congress grills Bernanke, but second term likely - AP
Bernanke May Get Second Term at Fed Shorn of Bank Supervision - Bloomberg
Bernanke Channels Willie Sutton In Assault On Social Security - HuffPost
The Bernanke Record - WSJ

INTERESTING
Cheerleaders get fired up about Salahi - Washington Post
Woods attracts fan sympathy, but slammed by media experts - Reuters
Putin Drops Hint About Run for Russian Presidency - Bloomberg
That Goldman Sachs Xmas Party Menu (in Full) - Cassandra Does Tokyo

###

Read more...

Double-dip nightmares

Thursday, December 03, 2009

To my knowledge the phrase "double-dip" was not uttered during today's confirmation hearing for Ben Bernanke, but that doesn't mean that the Fed chairman and/or elected officials weren't thinking about it (this cartoon spotted over at Jesse Felder's Posterous where this one with the last two Fed chairman was pretty good too).
IMAGE Of course, it would be pretty hard to top the tumult that we experienced during the election of a year ago, but that doesn't mean it can't happen again.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Jim DeMint does not ♥ Ben Bernanke

Here's an interesting exchange from today's Bernanke confirmation hearing. This one was with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), an ardent supporter of bringing the nation's central bank out from the shadows if this recent op-ed piece with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is any indication.

DeMint: I'd like to ask a few questions Mr. Chairman, and I'd appreciate short answers because I want to cover some territory today but we don't know a lot about the operation of the Federal Reserve and for that reason I think the best way to judge performance is to look at outcomes, particularly outcomes based on the goals that you set for yourself.

In your confirmation hearing in 2005, you specifically listed four duties of the Federal Reserve and I'd just like to mention those and just ask you how you think we've done. One of them was fostering the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in the financial markets. Has the Federal Reserve under your leadership accomplished that goal?

Bernanke: Um. No, but we also had lots of co-conspirators in that problem.

DeMint: Another duty you listed was supervising and regulating the banking system to promote the safety and soundness of the nation's banking system and financial system. Has the Federal Reserve under your leadership accomplished that goal?

Bernanke: We found some mistakes and we've tried to improve them.

DeMint: I appreciate your short answers. Another duty you listed was conducting the nation's monetary policy in pursuit of the statutory objective of maximum employment. Do you feel the Federal Reserve under your leadership has accomplished that goal?

Bernanke: We've moved monetary policy as much as possible to try to support employment growth, but, obviously a 10 percent unemployment rate is not very satisfactory.

DeMint: Again I appreciate your answers.
Ouch! Someone will probably put up a YouTube clip of this in a few hours or so. Have a look at some of the expressions on Bernanke's face during this exchange - he seems to go back and forth between smirks and indignation.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Jim Bunning does not ♥ Ben Bernanke

With a groundswell of public opinion against the Federal Reserve in general and Ben Bernanke in particular, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) takes something of a victory lap for having been the only committee member to oppose Bernanke's nomination four years ago.

Bunning's prepared statement at today's confirmation hearing from his website:

Four years ago when you came before the Senate for confirmation to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve, I was the only Senator to vote against you. In fact, I was the only Senator to even raise serious concerns about you. I opposed you because I knew you would continue the legacy of Alan Greenspan, and I was right. But I did not know how right I would be and could not begin to imagine how wrong you would be in the following four years.

The Greenspan legacy on monetary policy was breaking from the Taylor Rule to provide easy money, and thus inflate bubbles. Not only did you continue that policy when you took control of the Fed, but you supported every Greenspan rate decision when you were on the Fed earlier this decade. Sometimes you even wanted to go further and provide even more easy money than Chairman Greenspan. As recently as a letter you sent me two weeks ago, you still refuse to admit Fed actions played any role in inflating the housing bubble despite overwhelming evidence and the consensus of economists to the contrary. And in your efforts to keep filling the punch bowl, you cranked up the printing press to buy mortgage securities, Treasury securities, commercial paper, and other assets from Wall Street. Those purchases, by the way, led to some nice profits for the Wall Street banks and dealers who sold them to you, and the G.S.E. purchases seem to be illegal since the Federal Reserve Act only allows the purchase of securities backed by the government.
It's hard not to like an elected official who sees fit to include phrases like "easy money", "filling up the punchbowl", and "cranking up the printing press" in his prepared remarks.

The rest is below and is well worth reading - failure at consumer protection, failure to see asset bubbles, failure to regulate banks, failure to monitor derivatives...
On consumer protection, the Greenspan policy was don’t do it. You went along with his policy before you were Chairman, and continued it after you were promoted. The most glaring example is it took you two years to finally regulate subprime mortgages after Chairman Greenspan did nothing for 12 years. Even then, you only acted after pressure from Congress and after it was clear subprime mortgages were at the heart of the economic meltdown. On other consumer protection issues you only acted as the time approached for your re-nomination to be Fed Chairman.

Alan Greenspan refused to look for bubbles or try to do anything other than create them. Likewise, it is clear from your statements over the last four years that you failed to spot the housing bubble despite many warnings.

Chairman Greenspan’s attitude toward regulating banks was much like his attitude toward consumer protection. Instead of close supervision of the biggest and most dangerous banks, he ignored the growing balance sheets and increasing risk. You did no better. In fact, under your watch every one of the major banks failed or would have failed if you did not bail them out.

On derivatives, Chairman Greenspan and other Clinton Administration officials attacked Brooksley Born when she dared to raise concerns about the growing risks. They succeeded in changing the law to prevent her or anyone else from effectively regulating derivatives. After taking over the Fed, you did not see any need for more substantial regulation of derivatives until it was clear that we were headed to a financial meltdown thanks in part to those products.

The Greenspan policy on transparency was talk a lot, use plenty of numbers, but say nothing. Things were so bad one TV network even tried to guess his thoughts by looking at the briefcase he carried to work. You promised Congress more transparency when you came to the job, and you promised us more transparency when you came begging for TARP. To be fair, you have published some more information than before, but those efforts are inadequate and you still refuse to provide details on the Fed’s bailouts last year and on all the toxic waste you have bought.

And Chairman Greenspan sold the Fed’s independence to Wall Street through the so-called “Greenspan Put”. Whenever Wall Street needed a boost, Alan was there. But you went far beyond that when you bowed to the political pressures of the Bush and Obama administrations and turned the Fed into an arm of the Treasury. Under your watch, the Bernanke Put became a bailout for all large financial institutions, including many foreign banks. And you put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government’s spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street, which they use to rake in record profits while ordinary Americans and small businesses can’t even get loans for their everyday needs.

Now, I want to read you a quote: “I believe that the tools available to the banking agencies, including the ability to require adequate capital and an effective bank receivership process are sufficient to allow the agencies to minimize the systemic risks associated with large banks. Moreover, the agencies have made clear that no bank is too-big-too-fail, so that bank management, shareholders, and un-insured debt holders understand that they will not escape the consequences of excessive risk-taking. In short, although vigilance is necessary, I believe the systemic risk inherent in the banking system is well-managed and well-controlled.”

That should sound familiar, since it was part of your response to a question I asked about the systemic risk of large financial institutions at your last confirmation hearing. I’m going to ask that the full question and answer be included in today’s hearing record.

Now, if that statement was true and you had acted according to it, I might be supporting your nomination today. But since then, you have decided that just about every large bank, investment bank, insurance company, and even some industrial companies are too big to fail. Rather than making management, shareholders, and debt holders feel the consequences of their risk-taking, you bailed them out. In short, you are the definition of moral hazard.

Instead of taking that money and lending to consumers and cleaning up their balance sheets, the banks started to pocket record profits and pay out billions of dollars in bonuses. Because you bowed to pressure from the banks and refused to resolve them or force them to clean up their balance sheets and clean out the management, you have created zombie banks that are only enriching their traders and executives. You are repeating the mistakes of Japan in the 1990s on a much larger scale, while sowing the seeds for the next bubble. In the same letter where you refused to admit any responsibility for inflating the housing bubble, you also admitted that you do not have an exit strategy for all the money you have printed and securities you have bought. That sounds to me like you intend to keep propping up the banks for as long as they want.

Even if all that were not true, the A.I.G. bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton. First you told us A.I.G. and its creditors had to be bailed out because they posed a systemic risk, largely because of the credit default swaps portfolio. Those credit default swaps, by the way, are over the counter derivatives that the Fed did not want regulated. Well, according to the TARP Inspector General, it turns out the Fed was not concerned about the financial condition of the credit default swaps partners when you decided to pay them off at par. In fact, the Inspector General makes it clear that no serious efforts were made to get the partners to take haircuts, and one bank’s offer to take a haircut was declined. I can only think of two possible reasons you would not make then-New York Fed President Geithner try to save the taxpayers some money by seriously negotiating or at least take up U.B.S. on their offer of a haircut. Sadly, those two reasons are incompetence or a desire to secretly funnel more money to a few select firms, most notably Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and a handful of large European banks. I also cannot understand why you did not seek European government contributions to this bailout of their banking system.

From monetary policy to regulation, consumer protection, transparency, and independence, your time as Fed Chairman has been a failure. You stated time and again during the housing bubble that there was no bubble. After the bubble burst, you repeatedly claimed the fallout would be small. And you clearly did not spot the systemic risks that you claim the Fed was supposed to be looking out for. Where I come from we punish failure, not reward it. That is certainly the way it was when I played baseball, and the way it is all across America. Judging by the current Treasury Secretary, some may think Washington does reward failure, but that should not be the case. I will do everything I can to stop your nomination and drag out the process as long as possible. We must put an end to your and the Fed’s failures, and there is no better time than now.
Amazingly, the name Greenspan appears no less than 12 times in Bunning's remarks.

That's not exactly good company these days...

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Bernanke defends his record

My trusty Tivo has about an hour-and-a-half head start on me but, unlike NFL games, it's hard to make up that gap by zipping through huddles and commercials.

They are now well into the Question & Answer portion of Fed chief Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearings (you can watch the live stream on CSPAN-3) and, so far, the headlines that it has generated seem pretty tame:

Yves at Naked Capitalism raised the following point about the impact on capital markets if Bernanke is not reappointed, one that few seem to have considered and what may make his confirmation all but inevitable despite some uncertainty.
1. As with the TARP, the threat is that if action is not taken, the markets will go to hell. With the TARP, the markets went to hell after its passage anyhow. If the markets are significantly misvalued as some feel (Roubini, John Hussman, to name a few), they will correct. If confirming or not confirming Bernanke is part of this dynamic, all it will affect is the timing, not the outcome.

2. This notion of Bernanke being “critical” further suggests that Wall Street believes or knows he has and will manipulate markets on their behalf. Of course, Bernanke did so in an explicit way with the $1 trillion Treasury/Agency market intervention that started in March and is tailing off now. And of course, there has been the raft of special facilities, but those are supposedly being wound down now. Has there been even more, as some have charged, than what has been made public?
It should come as no surprise that in this Rasmussen poll that found dwindling support for the Fed chief by the population at large, those who classify themselves as "investors" support a second term for Bernanke by more than two-to-one over "non-investors."

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Grab some popcorn and tune to C-SPAN3

In a preview of what lies ahead today, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) talks to CNBC about Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearing that is about to get underway.



Bunning isn't the most credible of the central bank's critics (see here and here from his curious 2004 re-election campaign), however, he is certainly entertaining to watch.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

Thursday morning links

TOP STORIES
Bernanke confirmation hearing to be contentious - LA Times
Senator Moves to Hold Up Bernanke Confirmation - NY Times
Just 21% Favor Bernanke’s Reappointment As Fed Chairman - Rasmussen Reports
Goldman Gets All The Attention. Does J.P. Morgan Get a Free Pass? - WSJ
Wells Fargo Reportedly Closing Some California Branches - Consumer Affairs
Goldman Sachs - because we’re worth it - FT AlphaVille
BofA to return $45 billion to taxpayers - CNN/Money
Worse Than Enron? - The Daily Beast

Get these links delivered to your inbox every day.

MARKETS/INVESTING
Oil rises above $77 despite weak US demand - Reuters
Gold May Extend Advance After Reaching Record - Bloomberg
Jim Welsh – The Real Elephant in the Room - The Big Picture
Morgan Stanley: The Dollar Has Bottomed - Business Insider
Here's The Real Peak In Gold - Business Insider
Why cheap oil is here to stay - CNN/Money

ECONOMY
Unemployment rises in almost half of metro areas - AP
U.S. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Fall to One-Year Low - Bloomberg
The Economic Reality That No One Wants to Talk About - Reich, HuffPost
Economy improving modestly, Beige Book says - MarketWatch
Jobs - A Solution at Hand? - Bruce Krasting
Why Main Street isn't hiring - CNN/Money

INTERNATIONAL
The dark side of Dubai - The Independent
Barclays bankers to get 150pc pay rise - Telegraph
ECB leaves key rate unchanged; eyes on Trichet - MarketWatch
China Says Dollar, Not Yuan, Needs Global Attention - Bloomberg
Thrifty Britons cash in on low interest rates and falling bills - The Independent
As Crisis in Dubai Unfolds, Quick Answers Are Unlikely - NY Times
ECB prepares to tip-toe toward the exit on loans - MarketWatch
S&P acts again on Dubai - FT AlphaVille

REAL ESTATE
FHA wants more "skin in the game" - Chicago Tribune
U.S. housing market meltdown not over yet: Zandi - Reuters
Toll Brothers: Look, McMansions Are More Affordable Than Ever - Business Insider
If You Think Home Prices Are Rising, Think Again - Olick, CNBC

FED/TREASURY/BANKING
Bernanke's biggest fears - CNN/Money
Q&A: Former Fed Official Poole on Bernanke and Politics - WSJ Economics
Most Senators “Have Fingers in the Wind” on Bernanke - Naked Capitalism
Bernanke will survive confirmation hearing - MarketWatch

INTERESTING
Leaving the Right - Sullivan, The Atlantic
Search on for missing Ore. Christmas tree cutters - AP
FDIC: 9 million U.S. households have no bank accounts - MarketWatch
Dubai Shows What A Property Plunge Really Looks Like - Bloomberg
The Roubini rebrand - Salmon, Reuters


###

Read more...

Marc Faber is not optimistic

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The Boom, Doom, and Gloomster thinks we've only seen the tip of the iceberg - something about the financial crisis not just bankrupting banks but entire countries.


Oh well. The good news is that he thinks central bank money printing all around the world should carry us through the next six months or so, maybe even another year.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

The recurring gold "bubble"

A lot of people are getting all worked up about the rising price of gold. Some say the current move has gone "parabolic" and that we're in the midst of a "blow-off top" akin to the early 1980s peak that saw the gold price disappoint investors for years afterward.

Just this morning, Hu Xiaolian, a vice-governor at the People's Bank of China, called gold a bubble and implied that the central bank wasn't much interested in buying thousands more tonnes of bullion as bank reserves at current prices.

Looking at the one-year gold chart below it's hard to disagree with that view, but there's much more to the story than that. In fact, as compared to previous moves up in this decade, the recent move has been rather tame so far for reasons that will be explained in a minute.
IMAGE Since the yellow metal began its decade-long ascent in 2000, there have been distinct periods of rising prices, most of which have begun in the odd numbered years, peaking in the even numbered years as indicated below.

The moves up in the 2001-2004 period are a bit difficult to see, coming off of a long bottoming process, however, the last three surges are so easily identifiable, it seems reasonable to just look at these three to see how the recent surge in the gold price compares.
IMAGE At first glance, the most recent ascent looks like a smallish version of the last two, however, the steepness of the curve, not its duration, is probably what has people calling this a bubble.

If it is a bubble, based on the graphic above, it would clearly be the third bubble in the last six years which would call into question the use of the term "bubble" in the first place.

But, what is critically important when comparing the last three moves up for the gold price is to note the scale on the chart. For example, some quick math reveals that the 2005-2006 move from just over $400 an ounce to $725 was a gain of some 70 percent and this occurred during a relatively calm period when central banks were still selling their gold reserves as fast as they could and the entire world still thought it was getting rich due to rising asset prices.

The 2007-2008 jaunt from the high $600 range to just over $1,000 was a surge of about 50 percent which took a few months less to accomplish than the prior move. This occurred when there was growing fear of inflation but the sustainability of the global financial and monetary system was not being widely challenged as it is today.

Depending upon how you measure it, the most recent move only amounts to about 30 percent, though you can surely get a larger number if you start the measurement in late-2008 when the entire financial world looked like it was in the process of imploding.

In fact, picking starting points that were the "final lows" for each of the three cycles described above (a judgment that, admittedly, is somewhat arbitrary), the picture looks like this, the current "bubble" appearing to be still something of a "baby bubble".
IMAGE While slightly ahead of the 2005-2006 move at only half its duration, it is still back of the pace set in 2007-2008 and 40 trading days short of a similar peak.

There are likely many ways to compare these three periods, but, since they are all clear stretches of surging prices followed by a consolidation and then another move up, probably the fairest way to look at them is to measure from the time that a previous high had been surpassed until a new peak was reached.

For those of you with a Kitco.com page open on your browser at home, those starting points would be mid-September 2005, early-September 2007, and just a few months ago in - you guessed it - September 2009.

Here too, the current run-up is just a pipsqueak, ahead of the other two at this stage in the game but, overall, still looking pretty wimpy.
IMAGE I don't know. If this is a gold bubble, it's unlike any other bubble that I've ever come across because it keeps happening over and over.

Normally, after a bubble reaches its maximum point of inflation and pops, it stays popped and doesn't begin to inflate again for many years or even decades - think Nikkei stocks in 1989, Nasdaq stocks in 2000, and housing in 2005. None of these bubbles show any real sign of inflating again, though, with all the money printing over the last year or so, anything is possible.

No, if the current move up in gold is a bubble it has to be some kind of new "recurring" bubble that offers better prospects for those wondering whether they should be buying the metal at more than $1,200 an ounce - if the bubble does burst sometime in the months ahead, given what's happened in recent years, it's likely to inflate again at some point, probably in September of 2011.

Of course, governments around the world could probably put an end to these recurring gold bubbles if they took Paul Volcker-like tough-love measures to restore confidence in paper money once and for all.

But, realistically, given today's decision makers, there are probably only two chances of that happening - slim and none, slim reportedly having just left town.

Bookmark and Share

Read more...

  © Blogger template Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP