All I Want for Christmas is a Gold Short Squeeze

I’ve mentioned in this blog before that I feel that the price of gold is kept low through market manipulation. That conclusion seems to be the only one that makes sense given the difference in price between the COMEX spot price of gold (currently $725) and the ebay price of one-ounce gold coins (currently $940-950). As previously mentioned, the main difference between these two markets is that Ebay is a market place where buyers and sellers are getting together to exchange the physical metal coins, whereas the COMEX markets are where buyers and sellers are getting together to exchange paper claims to gold. Ideally, there should be no difference, but since I can sell a paper claim without actually having the metal itself to sell, I could theoretically flood the market with paper claims to gold to depress the price. The one catch is that the buyer has the option of notifying the seller that he would like to take physical possession of the contracted gold, at which point the seller must provide the physical stuff. 

According to COMEX, it has 5 million ounces of gold in it’s possession, whereas 18 million ounces are currently contracted for December delivery. Typically this isn’t a problem because COMEX is a traders market and traders hardly, if ever, take physical delivery but are instead content to settle up with the dollar difference between the buy and the sell. But current market situations present a unique arbitrage situation. Arbitrage, is where there is a price discrepancy between two different markets for the same good. If the price is large enough, then all one would have to do is buy the good in the cheaper market and sell it for a profit in the more expensive one. What if someone did that with gold?

When someone places a “short trade” they are selling something in the hopes of buying it in the future. If the short sale has not properly borrowed the asset they are selling then they are, in essence, just hoping that the buyer won’t ask for it before the seller places the buy order to cover their original short sale. What can sometimes happen is that the short sellers create more open orders for something than they can comfortably get their hands on because someone else is actually buying up all the open interest. When that happens, the price of the object in question keeps going up and the short sellers suddenly must scramble to buy whatever the object in question is to cover their shorts and they come to find that there simply aren’t enough available to fulfill all the short orders that needs covering. This is called a “short squeeze” and the result is that the short seller ends up broke as the holders of the object can name their price to the short seller who now must look to them to cover his short. 

A short squeeze on gold is the stuff of legend. The last time the a corner on the gold market was even attempted was in September of 1869, when then infamous “robber baron” Jay Gould lead an conspiracy of financiers to ruin in the attempt (which you can read more about in Dark Genius of Wall Street: The Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons). In fact, when I bring up the idea of such an event happening, most people seem to dismiss the idea of a replay of the Hunt’s attempt in the early 1980s. The key difference here is an attempt is not being made to corner the entire world gold market, but rather just to squeeze the shorts on the COMEX who have promised to deliver far more gold than they could ever lay their hands on. 

The traditional problem with attempted corners is that, if the attempt does not pay off you have a lot of over leveraged parties who have to unwind all of their buy positions which causes the market to fall ever faster back towards the old price. But, in this case, there would be no reason to sell your long positions (i.e. your buys) because you could simply take physical delivery and see it on the physical market; that is, you’re showing a profit by way of the buy anyway, and if it results in a short squeeze that hugely jacks up the price of gold, so much the better. 

This idea has been floating around the internet lately and MSN’s Professor Lewis has indicated recently that early signs of a short squeeze brewing are starting to crop up. The biggest indicator Dr. Lewis points to is that the gold leasing rates are starting to shoot up (an indication that banks are increasingly unwilling to loan out their gold). These rates have not come down as the central banks of the world have extended credit to the banks, which indicates that it’s not just a liquidity issue at stake. A huge up move in the price of gold could be in the works. As a huge holder of Barrick Gold stock (ticker symbol ABX), I must say that that would make a very welcome Christmas present indeed.

Answering Nono’s Question

Just this morning, a reader posted this comment:

In 1999 I plotted the trailing PE ratio for the DJ30 back to 1925. I have not updated it. But a quick look at the graph shows the average to be close to 15. Only two periods, once for 3 years and once for 4 years, had PE ratios below 10. So I think you are wrong.

I also made a correlation plot of PE ratio vs. following year market performance. There was not a significant correlation. In other words, forget about PE ratio when trying to decide what the market will do in the next year.

Dear Nono,

I very well could be wrong in stating that the trailing PE ratio of the broad based American stock market is around 11, but I did not actually come to that figure. That is the figure that is being used by Bill Bonner, as well as an entire group of Economists that Henry Blodget follows. So, if I am wrong, I am at least part of an entire wrongheaded crowd. 🙂 

Seriously though, I’d encourage you to follow the link for the Blodget story and see if you can research the differences between your number and the 11 figure that is more commonly used. One noticeable difference would seem to be that you plotted the Dow Jones 30 whereas the others are looking at the far broader S&P500. Also, you stopped at the year 1999, which was the market top for PE as it turned out. If you go forward through the end of this year, I’m sure that would lower your average a bit. 

In regards to your claim that buying stocks at a lower PE does not impact the level of return you get, you are contradicting other economic study regarding stocks. In John Mauldin’s book Bull’s Eye Investing: Targeting Real Returns in a Smoke and Mirrors Market he specifically says that “, the long-term returns you get from index fund investing are very highly correlated with the P/E (price to earnings) ratio at the time you make your initial investment.”

So those are the sources I am using. I have not done the math myself, but if you point me in the right direction in terms of where I can get the dataset, I may run the numbers myself to see what I get.

Jeremy Siegel Defrauds Investors by Calling Stocks “Dirt Cheap”

Dr. Jeremy Siegel wants you to know that know is a great time to buy stocks. In fact, he says he’d be surprised if you didn’t get a 20% return on your investment in the next twelve months. Of course, Dr. Siegel’s crystal ball is proving to not be all that great. In 2007 he predicted that 2008 would be a great year for stocks and that financial stocks should do particularly well. So much for that prediction.

To understand his latest argument, Siegel is putting a fair market value on the S&P at 1380. Since the S&P closed today at 930, you can see why’d he think now was a great bargain, but how did he arrive at that 1380 number? Well he says that the long term fair market value for stocks is to trade at a PE of 15 and he then conjures up a figure for what the next 15 years of earnings for the S&P should be based on the past 15 or so- which is equal to $92 a share. $92 x 15 = 1380. Voila. I could almost hear Dr. Siegel add, “Wil-E Coyote. Super Genius!”

This article struck me as a bit fishy, and not just because I’m a bear. For one, having been a avid read of Bill Bonner, I knew from books such as Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century that the long term PE for stocks is to trade at 11, not 15. So I was curious as to how Dr. Siegel came up with such figure. It turns out, he made a mistake. Bonner and the bears are correct in saying that the average long term trailing PE for stocks is 11, 15 is the average PE for earnings from four years ago, not next year’s projected. Currently, stocks are trading at a PE of 18 compared to trailing earnings, as Dr. Siegel himself pointed out in the article where he calls stocks “dirt cheap”, and a PE of 18 is not cheap when the long term average is 11. The upshot is that Dr. Siegel made an error and that stocks are actually expensive on the order of 40% compared to their long term PE ratios, not 40% the cheaper as he claims they are.

The other thing that Dr. Siegel doesn’t seem to understand is that the long term average of stock PE is just that- a LONG term average. There are many bull market years where the PE is trading above 11 and many bear market years where it is trading below 11. Furthermore, these periods of over and under valuation tend to be grouped together in the time line: we see stocks priced well over the long term average through the 1920s and then under during the Great Depression of the 1930s. So if we are continuing the bear market slide that started in 2000, then we should expect stocks to be trading BELOW their long term average. Which means, if the trailing average is 11, we should expect to start seeing stocks trading at PE levels of 8 to 10 as they did in the 1970s. You’d have thought that the author of Stocks for the Long Run might have studied up on the market a bit to see just how long the “long run” can really be.

Of course, all of this bull market analysis is based on the notion that the next 50 years of American history should be more or less akin to the last 50 years or so, and that’s a claim I take issue with. American has dominated the last 50 years of world events as a titan with unmatched military, industrial and economic power. Looking forward 50 years into the future, do we really expect to see that continue? Which brings us back to Dr. Siegel; clearly he is wrong in his analysis, but it he simply mistaken or did he aim to reach for a conclusion that would make other parties happy.

Don’t get me wrong, we all make mistakes. Perhaps Dr. Siegel put less time and effort into his Yahoo columns that I put into this blog and just doesn’t get a chance to double check his math, but I don’t think so. I think Dr. Sigel fudged the numbers to arrive at a rosy outcome. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time a Macroeconomist has gone through a rather dubious trick of logic and math to reach the politically desirable conclusion. Indeed, John Maynard Keynes’s The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is nothing but a intellectual fraud filled with straw man arguments, shifting definitions, and math based on dubious assumptions, but it is heralded as a classic largely because it came to the desired conclusion of the day: the free market was inherently unstable unless assisted by the power of government. Macroeconomists are task masters at fudging their numbers to support the conclusions that they feel are popular. Why should we think Dr. Siegel is doing any different here?

Volatility Continues

The market sure is doing some crazy things lately. The Dow was up over 12% or so on election Tuesday. Then, after the candidate who was favored to win actually won, it fell 5% or so for the next two days in a row. I’m starting to miss the good old days when the market just moved in steps of .5% a day instead of big five and ten percent moves. Gratefully, my Barrick stock only lost a couple of percent yesterday, which was much better than the broader market. Today it did not hold up so well, losing 7.3% compared to the Dow’s 4.8%. I was expecting that the announcement of Barrick’s earnings would stabilize their stock performance, but it doesn’t seem to have had any effect. Instead, I just read some analyst writing that the lower gold price impacted Barrick’s earnings, but that’s not quite accurate. 

If you dissect Barrick’s Q3 earnings, you’ll see that their income for the third quarter was, in their words: 

In third quarter 2008, net income was $254 million, compared to $345 million in the same prior year period.  Net income includes impairment charges on investments totaling $97 million, principally due to a write-down of our investment in Highland Gold whose share price declined from $3.49 on June 30, 2008, to $1.21 on September 30, 2008, and was recently trading at around $0.76.  Excluding special items, net income was slightly higher than the prior year period, as higher gold prices were partly offset by higher gold and copper total cash costs.  Although gold production was higher than the prior year period, gold sales volumes were lower due to a temporary increase in unsold finished goods inventory at Goldstrike and Bulyanhulu due to the timing of shipments.  We expect to sell this production in fourth quarter 2008, generating an expected profit contribution of approximately $27 million. 

So it wasn’t the price of gold that impacted Barrick’s earnings as much as the dramatic drop in the price of the common stock in gold companies- specifically they lost their shirt’s in their investment in Highland Gold. But that does seem a one-off event that isn’t likely to be impacting their earnings going forward.

And what of the price of gold. Well, mining analyst and geologist Éric Lemieux has this to say about the price of gold:

The decline in gold prices flies in the face of every theory. The U.S. dollar has been appreciating and the U.S. economy is going through a recession. Gold should be increasing in value in the face of all this uncertainty. To see the price of gold going down right now is almost unexplainable in my opinion. It begs the question, is this due to some type of manipulation, either directly or indirectly?

… I believe we’re experiencing the results of probable financial industry fraud. Time will tell who was responsible. I hope we will hold the perpetrators accountable. Unfortunately, I think certain elements are trying to sweep all this under the rug.

I agree with him that the decline in the price of gold flies in the face of everything that SHOULD be happening at this time of uncertainty regarding gold prices. I also agree that there is manipulation going on and that that will probably be revealed in time. And, as previously mentioned on this site, there is an ever growing disconnect between the price of physical gold and the COMEX price of gold futures for immediate delivery (i.e. “the spot price”). Theoretically, these prices should be within $50 of each other or so because the gold coin would sell at a premium over the spot gold price reflecting the cost of minting the coin itself. Today, the COMEX price for gold for gold closed at roughly $725, while gold listings on ebay in the last week are selling for $940.

That’s a difference of over $200 between those two prices, and that’s indicates that something is just not right. Somehow, the COMEX price for gold does not reflect what people are actually paying for it. Whether that’s due to market inefficiency or outright manipulation by the banking system and their paper claims to gold is left to the reader’s discretion, but I do feel that we’re going to see a strong upward move in the price of gold in the months ahead. Let’s also not forget that the President Bush and President Elect Obama are going to be attending a multinational meeting on November 15th; this promises to be the first of many meetings regarding the current economic crisis and gold has already been mentioned by French President Sarkozy as the answer that will bring “discipline” to the market. So factor in a lot of world leaders paying lip service to gold in a couple of weeks and I don’t see how the price is going to continue to gold down, manipulation or no.

My Experience with Democracy

First an apology for not posting for a while. I lost my internet connection for a few days and it wasn’t restored until today. So I wasn’t able to follow the election results all that closely yesterday, but I was certain that Obama was going to win. For that matter, I was sure Obama was going to win back in 2006. It just didn’t seem any big mystery back then that the nation was tired of George Bush and that whichever Republican won the nomination was not going to be able to combat the last eight years of a sagging economy and an unpopular war in Iraq. There was another election I was fairly sure the result of my own. 

Yes, for those of you who don’t know, I ran for office. Specifically I ran for State Representative District 115. The Libertarian Party asked me to. I felt bad that they didn’t have a gung-ho guy in District 115, so I signed on as a “not so gung-ho” candidate of District 115. My campaign wasn’t the most inspired ever run. I printed neither signs nor buttons. In fact, I spend no money to promote myself whatsoever. I did answer a couple of questionaries sent to me by the League of Women Voters and other voter information groups and I did attend one GEICO sponsored “come meet the candidates” luncheon. Yes despite my complete lack of enthusiasm, I somehow managed to appeal to 8248 people. Yes, I won a full 19% of the popular vote in the race for State Representative against Incumbent Jim Jackson. Don’t believe me, you can read it for yourself at USA Today.

I must confess I was astounded at the number. I don’t know 8248 people. How on Earth could that many people have voted for me, without ever meeting me? Well I did get a chance to vote for me, so that’s only 8247 unaccounted for. My mother said she voted for me, and I suppose I can believe her. And an ex-girlfriend whom I hadn’t heard from in a while who saw my name on a ballot. As for the remaining 8245, I have no idea. I’m beginning to suspect that they may have voted for me without knowing me at all. 

Come to think of it, how many of Jim Jackson’s 35,599 actually knew his name before stepping into the booth? I know I’ve often gone into the booth to vote for some candidate of issue at the national or local level and then started befuddled at the array of candidate I had to chose for local elections. I think it’s highly possible that the vast majority of the roughly 44,000 voter could not pick either of us out of a line up. Let’s be frank, I don’t think those voters knew us from Adam. 

So it was with astonishment and mirth that I saw that somehow over 19% of the voters (8248) actually voted for me. Given that I was the only choice other than Republican Incumbent Jim Jackson, I think that this is a fairly good indicator of how many people just decided to vote against the Republican on sheer principle. Well, I suppose I was happy to make my name available to people so they had someone to vote for other than the Republican. 

Recently I began to have doubts that Democracy worked at all. After this experience, I feel fairly certain that it doesn’t. Until tomorrow, your steadfast candidate is signing off.

Obama’s Infommercial

I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I heard about Barack Obama’s infommercial that addressed our current economic crisis. Being that our current economic crisis is my main focus on the pages of this blog, I felt I had to go out of my way to give my readers the lowdown on what he said and what he’s promising. I found a copy of the text of the infomercial as well as the video at the LA Times.

In reading through it, I must say I felt moved. Obama has a talent for really speaking in a way that moves people that I must confess being envious of. Certain lines such as:

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job – an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The line is pure fluff, but it’s moving fluff. Americans have witnessed CEOs getting rich by bankrupting the companies they run and I’m sure they are tired of it. It is a bizarre perversion of the free market system, which is supposed to reward people in proportion to their contributions, to instead reward greedy managers who bankrupt the company they were entrusted to grow. At least when Michael Milken was destroying companies one could argue that he was doing a service by buying them, breaking them up, and selling off the smaller pieces to the interested parties. Simply bankrupting a company serves no useful purpose and is damaging to the country and the economy. But what is Barack going to do about it? How can the President, regardless of how well meaning, somehow restore the economy to where it honors the “dignity of work”? Well, here are some of his specifics:

What happened in the financial markets was the final verdict on eight years of failed policies.  And we’re now going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

A few weeks ago, we passed a financial rescue plan.  It’s a step in the right direction … and as president, I’ll ensure that you, the taxpayers, are paid back first.

But we also need a rescue plan for the middle class … starting with what we can do right now that will have an immediate effect. 

As president, here’s what I’ll do:

Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year.

Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years … and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages,  by freezing foreclosures for 90 days.

And just like after 9-11, we’ll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open.

None of that grows government.  It grows the economy and keeps people on the job.

He’s basically talking about handing out loans like Santa Claus. If our current financial crisis should tell us anything it’s that easy credit is not the way to prosperity. The other part he’s promising is tax cuts. I never meet a tax cut I didn’t like, and I think he’s on the right track here, but if the Republicans have taught us anything it’s that tax cuts don’t help the economy unless they are accompanied by a reduction in government spending. The typical Republican course of action of raising spending while cutting taxes is not a true tax cut, but rather merely displacing the tax onto future generations… plus interest. 

Sure enough, later in the talk, Barack promises to do just that. 

I’ll also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that don’t work … and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

And one of the biggest savings we can make is to change our policy in Iraq. 

Bingo. You want a method to jump start the economy, here it is. Unfortunately, this is not a new promise coming from a politician hoping to become President. And it does beg the larger question as to why Obama hasn’t already done this. The federal government releases its budget every year, so why hasn’t he already gone through this years budget and outlined some areas of clear waste. You don’t need to be President to do that. 

Of course he did identify one clear area of government spending that he’d like to eliminate in terms of the occupation of Iraq- which is excellent. However, this war has grown unpopular, so it’s not like it’s hard to come out against it. If he were, on the other hand, to come out against some of our other stupid wars, such as the “War on Drugs”, then it’s doubtful the good moral people of this country would actually elect him- which is a shame. It’s a huge drag on the economy that we spend tax money to lock up people just for getting their groove on with substances deemed illegal. 

While we’re at it, let’s talk about another stupid government war: the “War on Poverty.” This is another war where we just need to admit defeat. Social Security has merely been a convenient tax from which the politicians will raid. As it stands, there’s no way we can afford all of our pledged free Medicare and Social Security payments to senior citizens. And unemployment insurance does have a crazy way of subsidizing unemployment. 

Unfortunately, Obama’s not going to touch any of these issues. In fact, he seems to be stating in the rest of his speech that he’d actually like to increase spending in these areas. So, while he may go “line by line” through the federal budget, I’m guessing we’re not going to see any real change. I’m also guessing that this is the reason he doesn’t get into specifics but instead speaks in generalities. 

Oh well. I suppose that’s how politicians get elected. What a crazy system.

Ben Bernanke’s Kick…. It’s Good!

Today the Fed announced that it was lowering the Fed Funds rates to 1%. The market rallied strongly late in the day, and then gave it all back to close at a loss. Barrick Gold, the stock I follow and am an investor in, announced that they were doubling their dividend and rose nicely to close the day up some 12% or so. Combined with a similar rise where Barrick mirrored the entire stock market in a 10% rise and I’ve had a couple of good days. The strange thing is that, outside of the announcement of this dividend today, Barrick has not had any newsworthy events or announcements for the entire month yet their stock has fallen from $37.36 on October 1st to trade at $18.14 on October 27th. When a company with a good balance sheet loses 50% of its value on absolutely no news, you know it’s a volatile market. 

I feel the stock’s going to make it all back though, so I’m not particularly worried. Still, as someone who’s been watching stocks for ten years or so, I’m not used to this kind of volatility. Usually if a stock loses 50% of its value, it’s because it announced it was being investigated by the SEC or something, but in today’s market it seems like anything goes. To try to understand what’s happening, you have to understand that basically the price that a stock trades at is really just a game being played by various players. Everyone comes to the game with money, but they borrow a lot more because that’s how big profits (and loses) get made. When someone in a leveraged position (i.e. they bought stock with borrowed money) takes a big loss they will often face having to liquidate their entire position just to pay off their creditors, and I believe we are seeing some of that happening with Barrick’s gold price.

In Edward Chancellor’s Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation he discusses the stock market of the late 1800s- the so-called “Gilded Age of the Robber Barons.” This was back before the days of the SEC; in fact, the SEC was created in part to stop the very activities that these guys would engage in. The market had various players, men like Jay Gould or JP Morgan, and each was playing with plenty of leverage. These men would often take interests in thinly-traded stocks because their stock price was easier to manipulate. Such stocks came to be known as “footballs” because they would be kicked by the various players to almost whatever price was desired. Fortunes where made and lost on these manipulated stock prices of these footballs. 

Fast forward more than a century, and it seems like the rules have changed, yet the game remains the same. Except now, instead of thinly traded stocks, the world market for everything from the price of oil to gold to the stock market seems to be kicked about by the various players of hedge funds, central banks, and governments. So I wasn’t too worried much about the loses I’d taken on Barrick this month. I figured it would only be a matter of time before one player or another would kick the stock back into play, and along came Ben Bernanke to cut the Fed Funds rate to 1%. Thanks Ben! I needed that.

Of course, I’m not sure that was the right now for the American economy as a whole. Fundamentally, we just need to get our house in order. Both our government and our people need to start spending less money than they take in for starters, and I’m afraid your interest rate cut is actually just an attempt to get them to do just the opposite. Making it easier for people to borrow money by lowering the key interest rate just discourages savings, and that’s actually the opposite of what needs to be happening now. But, what’s bad for the US Dollar is good for gold. It also seems to be good for the sales of books related to the collapse of the American Dollar. 

Bush Tells Banks to Stop Hoarding and Lend

In the promotion for Naomi Wolf’s new book Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries Ms. Wolf states that the United States has recently been overtaken by a coup. She further asserts that George Bush will not release the presidency but will instead declare martial law.

As someone who loves liberty and distrusts governments (in general) and the Bush Administration (in particular) I have to admire Ms. Wolf’s spirit, but I also have to disagree with her assertions. George Bush will not declare martial law. I believe it’s simply not in his nature.

We’ve never meet, but I feel I’ve come to know George W. Bush over the last nine years or so. I started out disliking him because of his politics, warming to him as a leader who would not hesitate to deliver a good country butt-whopping to Osama Bin Laden, and then watched as he proceeded to use 9/11 as merely another political tool to justify invading Iraq and getting him re-elected. I not the first to doubt the sincerity of our President regarding finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but by his 2004 election campaign I was convinced that the justification for the war had been entirely manufactured. At the time a lot of Republicans vehemently disagreed with me; now they just change the subject. 

I realized that our fearless leader was carrying out the tried and true politics of fascism: praise Americans for their self-perceived virtues, preach fear, make power grabs for increased legal authorities and oversights, and work closely to favor certain corporations. In that way, Ms. Wolf and I do see the President in a similar light, but she takes this to its logical conclusion: surely aggressive grabs for power must come from a power mad figure who will not release control. That is where we disagree. 

I don’t feel that Bush is really all that power hungry. In fact, I think he’s sick of politics. I know it’s strange to try to analyze inner motivations of someone I’ve never met, but I’m not even sure Bush ever wanted to be President to begin with. I think the Bush family and friends thought that he could become President and encouraged him to do so. To my way of thinking,  Bush is merely the puppet for the “advisors” behind the scenes who developed the plans to invade Iraq long before Bush even took office. And so I envision Bush looking upon his Presidency much like his college must have seemed to him: important stuff but really he’d rather be doing something else. Even since becoming a politician, Bush has had to study all over again- except instead of tests he has to study for, its debates, speeches, and press conferences. 

That’s perhaps why Bush’s politics have seemed so fluid. He started out preaching about the power of free markets combined with small governments. Then, much like college, he passed that test and went on to study entirely new material that didn’t necessarily relate much to the past material. It would seem the course curriculum of Bush’s Presidency started with a lot of early testing on small government, then moved on to how to build public support for a war, then spent some time delving into how to build a police state, and is now being tested on Socialism and international coordination to intervene in the function of the marketplace.

I’m certain that all of this has taxed the poor man’s brain. Let’s face, that’s a lot of material to cover in eight years- much less make it seem part of a coherent political agenda that has any consistency at all. So while Ms. Wolf is pointing to Bush’s power hungry politics, I’d like to inform her that that was last year’s material. He’s a Socialist now. Case in point, Bush is now telling the banks how to run the banking business. I suppose in some ways this might be perversely justified. After all, it would seem the government has recently become a major stockholder in the major institutions of banking and it is only natural for large shareholders to feel that they have a say in how the company is run. 

Still, it does strike me as rather hypocritical for a man who bankrupted so many oil companies to tell bankers how to do their job. Ironically, the advice that Bush is giving them (i.e. get out there and lend more money) was exactly the thing that got them into this pickle to begin with. After all, in terms of lending money, once banks have given billions of dollars to people who had no means of repaying it, there’s really no where to go but down. 

I wonder who convinced Bush to be a Socialist. They certainly seem to have been excellent tutors for him. These days he can rattle off rhetoric that would have made FDR and John Maynard Keynes proud. After all, it was in regard to the banking industry that FDR opined “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Bush, like FDR before him, is telling banks to ignore their natural fear of bankruptcy and get out there and lend some of this money the government/Federal Reserve is giving you so that we can start inflating again.

It’s sad that we as a nation have now been reduced to seeing Bush parroting the most influential figures of the school of thought and political party he was supposed to be staunchly opposed to, and I can’t help but think that it must eat at him. I’m sure that he doesn’t like the notion that he’s made a terrible mess of our nation and I’m sure he must be secretly blaming the course instructors who gave him the notes to study to begin with. “Why the hell am I having to give the speeches of FDR?” he must be wondering. 

And as such I’m sure that Bush will step aside when the time comes. He must tacitly admit to himself that things haven’t gone all that well and that it’s time to step aside and let someone else can in and fail spectacularly. As for the voting public, it would seem that fake Socialism just won’t do. “Why buy imitation when you can get the real thing?” might be the thoughts of many people voting for Barrack Obama- a man who has been much more consistent in his Socialism than our current President. As Bush demonstrated in the 2004 election, the American people want consistency. They don’t want Capitalism Warmonger one day, and then Socialist international coalition builder the next. 

So soon it will be Obama’s turn at the wheel and we in the United States will get to see how a real Socialist does things. I can hardly wait.

The Free Market’s Unlikely Champion

In the dark hours of a collapse is when the free market tends to undergo its most radical depredations. Politicians never seem to grasp the complexities of what’s going on, but understand that SOMETHING needs to be done. Like FDR, they just start changing things and hope for the best. Later, a whole generation of economists would praise FDR for his decisive actions. “It’s not that his actions were particularly good,” they might say, “but something needed to be done.” A crisis can not go unanswered. To believe otherwise is sacrilege in macroeconomics. If one believes that an economy can be managed by comparing aggregate supply to aggregate demand, then one has not only the right, but the responsibility to correct the situation.

“With great power, comes great responsibility” were the fictionalized words of Spiderman’s Uncle Ben to Peter Parker, the main character. Peter resisted being called to the role of hero, but in the end, who else had the power to save the world. And this must be how politicians and macroeconomists must feel. They have been given the almost superhuman power to restore confidence in Capitalism by correcting some of the messier elements of the free market system.

And then there’s France. France has always been the butt of America’s jokes; the nation labeled by Homer Simpson as the land of “cheese eating surrender monkeys.” Americans fancy themselves as rugged individualists living by their wits in the dog eat dog world of free market capitalism.  We seem to feel that France is the sissy brother of our western allies: people speaking a strange language in a system so collectivist in their Socialism that it borders on Communist. Like most of America’s fantasies, we seem a bit off base; our system is far more collectivist (and socialist) than we would like to admit and our attitudes regarding France seem unduly harsh. Truthfully, I feel that those two nations have much more in common that either would like to admit. 

Lest we forget, it was France that enabled us to win our independence to begin with. While Americans seem to approach having an empire as a novel idea with grand appeal, France has already gone through their empire phase, complete with an attempt to take over the world through force. And when it comes to fiscal discipline, France seems to have a better understanding of when the game is up than we do. Experience is the best teacher and France has been burned before in the game of holding foreign currencies in the name of global stability. As Murray Rothbard recounted in A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II France was made a dutiful martyr early in the game of modern finance.

After the aftermath of the first world war, Britain made an attempt to return to the gold standard at their pre-war par. Normally this would have been a very contractionary move, as Britain had vastly inflated their money supply to fight the first world war and therefore there was a far greater ration of paper pounds to central bank gold to back it. One would expect that they would merely have taken the more conventional move of returning to the gold standard at a new par that reflected the vastly inflated quantity of paper notes in circulation. If Britain desired, for whatever reason, to return to valuing the pound at the old par, then one would then have expected for Britain to start contracting their money supply over the years as the United States did in retiring the greenback after the Civil War. But the master planners in Britain, now doubt influenced by the most prominent British economist of the time, John Maynard Keynes. Instead they desired to actually inflate their money supply while simultaneously revert to redeeming their pound in gold. While this scheme might seem absurd to the likes of ordinary mortals like you and I, the British economists felt they could do it.

Part of the plan was that they would not redeem the pound for gold with ordinary citizens, so it was not a true gold standard but rather what became to be called a gold exchange standard. Since the other nations of the world were also in shambles from the first world war (with the notable exception of the United States) Britain felt that no one else would be in a position to present large quantities of paper pounds for redemption as long as the Britain could get the United States to play along. The Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Benjamin Strong, supported this move by the British, for it required the Federal Reserve to expand its money supply even more than the British were doing. Both countries economies underwent a huge inflationary boom in “the roaring twenties”. We all know how that story ended.

What is often lost on those of us not familiar with Rothbard’s excellent history, is that the central bank of France began acquiring large quantities of British pounds as its industries revived and it ran a trade surplus with its British neighbor. The French became nervous as they watched the British and the United States continue their inflationary campaign. They understood that Britain might have a problem redeeming all of the pounds the French possessed should they be ever be presented. But the British central banker, Lord Montagu Norman, convinced the French that Great Britain would stand by their pledge to redeem their pound in gold, even if they had to start raising interest rates and end their inflationary campaign to do it.

So the French played along and held onto their British pounds. As the situation became increasingly untenable, the French began demanding that the British halt their inflationary ways and instead start contracting their money supply. The British were forced to either abandon their pledge to the world to redeem their pounds or they had to stop inflating. Instead of face the pain that might come with higher interest rates, they chose the abandon their gold standard.  France’s central bank had to take a huge loss on the paper pounds it held in it’s vaults.

Fast forward a few decades, and now the players are slightly different, but the story remains the same. Now it is the United States that is maintaining a gold exchange standard, and France is, once again, acquiring a large number of paper dollars. It received similar pledges from the United States that it would stand by its pledge to redeem the dollars in gold, but France once against watched as first LBJ and later Nixon expanded the money supply to increase government entitlements and fight a war in Southeast Asia. As they saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” Or, as President Bush shortened it, “You can’t get fooled again.” And so the French didn’t.

Having been burned by their previous experience with England no doubt colored the French decision to continue presenting their dollars to the United States for redemption. And again the leaders of the currency promising to redeem the dollar in gold, were so resistant to the idea of reigning in their spending, that they chose instead to simply make them irredeemable. Yet again, France and the other nations of the world took a loss on their dollar holdings, and today the loss has now spread over to the include debt instruments backed by the dollar as well. 

So now the French are lecturing the world on the benefits of fiscal discipline: Both French President Nicolar Sarkozy as well as Europe’s central banker Jean-Clause Trichet have recently announced a conference in mid-November that will be attended by all of the major western powers including the United States. The topic of this conference is to be a return to the Bretton Woods accord- the accord which Nixon abandoned by ceasing redemption of dollars for gold. 

It’s not hard to figure out the true motive here. Sarkozy and Trichet want to displace the US Dollar from the reserve currency of the world and instead put the Euro in its place. And why not? God has not ordained the US Dollar legal tender for all debts, the US government has; the history of the dollars reign as reserve currency of the world is one ripe with abuse as America has inflated its money supply and forced the other nations of the world to eat the cost. The nations of the world might be ready for a new currency, and Sarkozy and Trichet are certainly ready to make it the Euro. Odds are, this conference may produce little more than lip service, but there is also a chance that Europe may announce a coup by declaring a standard of redeem ability for the Euro in gold. If so, then I would image a stampede of the nations of the world out of the US Dollar and into this newly found hard money. I can only imagine what would happen to the value of the dollar.

Volatility Continues

Well, as Mandelbroit says, volatility begets volatility. The stock market was up a lot on Monday only to give it back again on Tuesday and gold stocks were no different. My actively trading/market timing friends are telling me that I should have sold back when certain trend lines were crossed, and I, if things keep going the way they do, I suppose they are right. Trend following works well when markets all move in one direction, as they are doing lately, but tends to generate lots of trades for small losses when the market drifts from one direction to the next and back again. Once, I used to be a trend follower, but I found I started underperforming the market at large. 

Then there are people like Warren Buffet They don’t really try to follow the market. They just feel that they are going to buy good stocks that will be “weighed” correctly in the long run. Or, as Bill Bonner puts it, “things that are out of whack have a tendency to get back in whack.” And that’s how I feel about gold stocks. Specifically the one gold stock I am invested in is Barrick gold (ticker symbol ABX). I hasn’t been doing to well lately and it’s down another 8% or so this morning, but I’ve found I’m not particularly bothered by its performance. Instead I’ve taken refuge in the slogans that I used to feel described bad investors- specifically that “it’s only a loss when you sell.” 

“What if it keeps going down,” some might ask. Well, in that case, I am prepared to buy more. I have a lot of money in bonds which is maturing in about three weeks, and I wouldn’t mind loading up on more Barrick gold. The company has been around since the 1980s, and is currently trading at the same price it was back in 1994. Since gold was bouncing around in the $200-$300 range around that time, and since its now bouncing around the $750-1000 range, I feel pretty confident that I’m making a good investment. In fact, I doubt I will be able to but it come mid-November for the price its trading at today, since they announce their earnings at the end of this month, but who knows. A recession may be on, but gold is still above where it was a year ago, even on that crazy COMEX market. So the company has been able to sell all the product it produces at prices higher than it did then, and it has expanding capacity coming up next year. So I’m not worried. Things will get “back in whack”.

It does beg the larger question about trading philosophy. In essence, would you rather invest like a Warren Buffet who picks good companies and sticks with them or like a George Soros who made his fortune by being on the right side of particular trades. There is no right answer to that question, its just a matter of personal preference. The advantage of being an investor with a longer time horizon is that you don’t have to monitor the market as much, but you do need to do your homework about the stocks you do like: study their markets, read their literature, listen to their conference calls. 

The one thing I would say though, is that if you are a Warren Buffet style investor, then you need to hang out with others of a similar mindset and vice versa. If a value based investor starts exchanging notes with an active trader, then they’re just going to mix each other up. It’s like a two dancers coming together and expecting each other to do radically different dances. And they tend to mess up each others timing. The value based investor will want to buy when stocks are down because, in comparison to their earnings, that’s when stocks are on sale. The trend following investor will never want to “catch a falling knife” and instead will admonish their friends never to buy a stock when it’s at or near it’s 52-week ago.  So when these two get together and talk one is saying that a stock is a buy based on Price-to-earnings and the other is saying its a sell based on technical analysis of the chart. The result of a collaboration between the two styles leads to the absolute worst kind of stock investing: buy high, sell low. 

I think what happens to the investing public at large is that they would like to be like Warren Buffet but don’t quite understand exactly what that means. They don’t read books like Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist but instead just jump right in with the sense that they inherently know how this investing thing is supposed to work. So they go out and buy companies they like. When they go up, they feel good and talk about investing for the long term. When they go down, they get scared. “What if this company goes out of business?” they wonder. They talk to their friends about it. Eventually, they end up scared to death, so they sell out at what ends up being the bottom. 

John Maynard Keynes said that “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid.” I suppose that’s true, but if liquidity isn’t a problem, then you can afford to wait. That’s the way I look at it anyway. Or as Bill Bonner put it, he buys stocks because he “feels bad for them.” That they are so neglected and unloved. Well right now the market is neglecting gold stocks. They are unloved and abused. No one will return their phone calls… except me.