May 6, 2024

Gold Bullion Coin Sales Drop For Fourth Straight Year, 2013 Sales Off To Strong Start

January 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

According to the latest U.S. Mint report, sales of the American Eagle Gold bullion coins for December 2012 totaled 76,000 ounces, up 16% from December 2011 when 65,500 ounces were sold.  Sales for the month were down 44.3% from November sales which totaled 136,500 ounces.

Sales of the gold bullion coins can vary dramatically from month to month.  The highest sales month was November with sales of 136,500 ounces and the lowest sales month was April when only 20,000 ounces were sold.  Average monthly sales of the gold bullion coins for 2012 was 62,750 ounces with total sales for the year coming in at 753,000.   The gold bullion coins are available in one ounce, one-half ounce, one quarter ounce and one-tenth ounce.

Sales of the American Eagle Gold bullion coins have now declined for four straight years in a row.  The all time record sales year was 2009 when the U.S. Mint sold 1,435,000 ounces.   The value of the gold bullion coins purchased since 2000 totals almost $13.5 billion.

The U.S. Mint only sells the gold bullion coins to a network of authorized purchasers who buy the coins in bulk based on a markup and the market gold value.  The primary distributors who buy the coins then resell them to other bullion dealers, coin dealers and the public.  By using this type of distribution channel, the U.S. Mint believes that the coins can be made widely available to the public with reasonable transaction costs and at premiums in line with other bullion programs.

The 2013 American Gold Eagle bullion coins were first available to authorized purchasers on January 2, 2013.  Demand for the newest gold bullion coins was very strong with 50,000 ounces sold on the first day.  For the entire month of January 2012, a total of 127,000 ounces of the coins were sold.

Gold Bullion U.S. Mint Sales By Year
Year Total Sales Oz.
2000 164,500
2001 325,000
2002 315,000
2003 484,500
2004 536,000
2005 449,000
2006 261,000
2007 198,500
2008 860,500
2009 1,435,000
2010 1,220,500
2011 1,000,000
2012 753,000
Total 8,002,500

After a volatile year, gold ended with a strong note for 2012, up by 7.1% and rising for the 12th year in a row as global central banks ramped up the printing presses in an attempt to “stimulate” the world economy.  In his annual “10 Surprises ” list for 2013, Byron Wien, Chairman of Blackstone Group’s advisory unit predicted that gold would reach $1,900 as “central bankers everywhere continue to debase their currencies and the financial markets prove treacherous.”  Based on the way things are going and the speed at which central banks are joining the money printing race, Mr. Wien’s forecast is likely to prove extremely conservative.

Filed Under: Bullion Sales, Currency debasement, Featured, Gold, US Mint Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Gold Has Outperformed Housing By 600% Since 2001

December 28, 2012 by 3 Comments

Anyone predicting that gold would outperform housing in 2001 would likely have been viewed as being seriously deranged.  After all, housing prices had increased for decades and by the peak of the housing market in 2007, real estate was believed to be a “can’t lose investment.”  The mantra that housing values only go up proved to be disastrous for many Americans as the over-leveraged real estate market imploded, shattering the wealth dreams of both naive homeowners and investors.

Despite the trillions of dollars of direct support from both the Federal Reserve and Congress, real housing values have yet to recover a fraction of their losses.  Mainstream press reports of a solid recovery in housing markets usually neglect to mention, that according to the Case-Shiller National Index, housing prices are still lower than they were at the turn of the century.

Courtesy: calculatedriskblog.com

Gold, meanwhile, unloved and ignored by most Americans is set to make its 12th straight annual gain.  From a yearly low of $255 per ounce during 2001, gold settled in New York trading on Thursday at $1,663.90, up 653% over the past 12 years.

Chart of the Day has some interesting data on the performance of gold versus housing, as represented by the Home Price/Gold Ratio.  Based on current prices, 105 ounces of gold will buy you the median priced single family home.  In 2001, a home buyer would have needed 601 ounces of gold to buy the same house.  Housing, when priced in gold, in down 80% from 2001.

Courtesy: chartoftheday.com

Despite gold’s proven ability to preserve wealth over time, most Americans still seem indifferent to allocating part of their portfolios into gold – something to think about as central banks ramp up the printing presses at an increasingly furious pace.

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, Gold Tagged With: , , , , ,

Gold Demand In Asia Remains Insatiable

December 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment

As gold demand in Asia soars, vault companies are racing to keep up with storage demand.  In July, Gold and Silver Blog reported on a massive new gold vault being constructed in Hong Kong by Malca-Amit due to unrelenting physical demand for gold in Asia.  The new vault was designed to hold 1,000 metric tonnes of gold and as of July, had already taken in 2,400 tonnes of gold owned by gold exchange traded funds.

It turns out that Malca-Admit should have built a much larger vault.  As demand for physical gold continues to increase, other companies have joined the race to provide secure depositories for wealthy investors.  The Wall Street Journal reports that demand for high-security vault capacity in Asia is soaring in Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Brink’s Co., for example, has increased its storage space for precious metals in Singapore more than threefold over the past year, to 200 square meters, and is building a bonded warehouse in Shanghai to store high-value consumer goods and precious metals.

“We are growing, and driving that growth is the storage of precious metals and also bank notes,” said Jos van Wegen, the company’s senior manager of global services in Singapore.

Comprehensive data on the volume of high-security storage capacity in the region isn’t available. But demand for gold is clearly rising.

China’s gold demand in the third quarter of this year was 176.8 tons—16% of global demand and up 47.1% from the same period three years ago, according to the World Gold Council. Hong Kong’s demand totaled 6.9 tons in the third quarter this year, up 56.8% from the third quarter of 2009.

Singapore imported 36.7 tons of gold in the first 10 months of this year, well down from 62 tons in the full year 2011. The government’s announcement in February that, in a bid to become a gold-trading hub, it would scrap a 7% goods and services tax on gold, silver and platinum hurt imports for much of the year. Fourth-quarter gold-import figures for Singapore are expected to be stronger, World Gold Council executives say.

While physical gold requires storage space, it does offer a lot of value in a relatively small package. At around $1,690 a troy ounce, a metric ton of gold is valued at $54.3 million, but would take up only slightly more space than a standard case of 12 wine bottles—though most gold is stored in ingots.

Malca-Amit, a company that stores and transports diamonds and precious metals, has lockups in Hong Kong and Singapore, and is preparing to open one in Shanghai in the first quarter next year. The Shanghai vault will also hold art and luxury goods such as high-value mobile phones and designer handbags.

Malca-Amit’s Singapore vault, capable of holding 600 tons of gold, is almost full, and the company is seeking more space. The amount of gold stored there has increased 200% from a year ago, it says.

Its recently opened Hong Kong vault can hold 1,000 tons of gold, which would be worth more than $54 billion. It is almost large enough to hold the official reserves of China, which total 1,054 tons, according to World Gold Council data.

Malca-Amit has gold-storage sites in New York and Zurich, but the focus of its expansion is firmly on Asia, executive director Joshua Rotbart said. Some Asian investors who are storing their gold in the U.S. and Europe are keen to move it closer to home as more storage space becomes available, he said.

The recent price weakness in gold is apparently viewed as a buying opportunity by sophisticated Asian investors seeking to protect their wealth from the torrential flood of printed money being produced on a global basis by central banks (see Central Banks Pledge Unlimited Money Printing).

On a recent visit to the Chinatown section of Bangkok, I witnessed first hand large crowds of customers in Chinatown’s numerous retail gold stores.  Gold has never defaulted on its promise as a means of wealth preservation, something clearly understood by the citizens of a country whose history goes back thousands of years.

Customers at Bangkok retail gold store

Chinese Gold

Chinese Gold

Filed Under: Bullion Sales, Currency debasement, Featured, Gold Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

The Hidden Risks Of Money Printing

December 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment

By Axel Merk

While Treasuries are said to have no default risk as the Federal Reserve (Fed) can always print money to pay off the debt, hidden risks might be lurking. As oxymoronic as it may sound, the biggest risk to the economy and the U.S. dollar might be, well, economic growth! Let us explain.

The U.S. government paid an average interest rate of 2.046% on the $11.0 trillion of Treasuries outstanding as of the end of November. Treasuries include Bills, Notes, Bonds and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). At 2.046%, the cost of carrying the Treasury portfolio currently costs the government $225 billion per annum; about 6% of the federal budget was spent on servicing the national debt. 1

While total government debt has ballooned in recent years, the interest rate paid by the government on its debt has continued on its downward trend:

We only need to go back to the average interest rate paid in 2001, 6.19%, and the annual cost of servicing Treasuries would triple, paying more than Greece as a percentage of the budget. Not only would other government programs be crowded out, the debt service payments might likely be considered unsustainable. Except for the fact that, unlike Greece, the Fed can print its own money, diluting the value of the debt. In doing so, the debt could be nominally paid, although we would expect inflation to be substantially higher in such a scenario.

These numbers are no secret. Yet, absent of a gradual, yet orderly decline of the U.S. dollar over the years – with the occasional rally to make some investors believe the long-term decline of the U.S. dollar may be over – the markets do not appear overly concerned. Reasons the market aren’t particularly concerned include:

  • The average interest rate continues to trend downward. That’s because maturing high-coupon Treasury securities are refinanced with new, lower yielding securities.
  • Treasury Secretary Geithner has diligently lengthened the average duration of U.S. debt from about 4 years when he took office to currently over 5 years.

For the U.S. government, a longer duration suggests less vulnerability to a rise in interest rates, as it will take longer for a rise in borrowing costs to filter through to the average debt outstanding. The opposite is true for investors: the longer the average duration of a bond or a bond portfolio one holds, the greater the interest risk, i.e. the risk that the bonds fall in value as interest rates rise.

Debt management by the Treasury only tells part of the story on interest risk. When the Treasury publishes “debt held by the public,” it includes Treasuries purchased in the open market by the Fed. By engaging in “Operation Twist”, the Federal Reserve stepped onto Timothy Geithner’s turf, manipulating the average duration of debt held by the private sector. Notably, the private sector holds fewer longer-dated bonds, as the Fed has gobbled many of them up.

However, investors may still be exposed to substantial interest risk in their overall fixed income holdings as, in the search of yield, many have doubled down by seeking out longer dated and riskier securities.

The Fed, many are not aware of, employs amortized cost accounting, rather than marking its holdings to market, thus hiding potential losses should interest rates go up and its portfolio of Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) fall in value.

Quantitative easing to increase interest risk

Whenever there’s a warning that all the money created by the Federal Reserve is akin to printing money, some dismiss these concerns as the money created out of thin air to buy securities has not caused banks to lend, but park excess reserves back at the Federal Reserve. As of December 14, 2012, $1.4 trillion in excess reserves is parked at the Fed. Substantial interest risk might be baked into reserves:

Consider that the Fed has been paying about $80 billion in profits to the Treasury in recent years. Think of it this way: the more money the Fed “prints”, the more (Treasury & MBS) securities it buys, the more interest it earns. That’s why Fed Chair Bernanke brags that his policies have not cost taxpayers a cent, even if the activities may put the purchasing power of the currency at risk. Now, Bernanke has also claimed he could raise rates in 15 minutes. In our assessment, it’s most unlikely he would do so by selling long-dated securities; instead, in an effort to keep long-term rates low, the most likely scenario is that the Fed will pay a higher interest rate on reserves. Up until the financial crisis broke out, the Federal Reserve would have intervened in the Treasury market by buying and selling securities to move short-term interest rates. In the fall of 2008, the Fed was granted the authority by Congress to pay interest on reserves.

As interest rates rise, not only will Treasury pay more for debt it issues, it may also receive less from the Fed. Interest rates would have to rise to about 6% for the entire $80 billion in “profits” to be wiped out assuming a constant $1.5 trillion in reserve balances ($1.4 trillion in excess reserves and $0.1 trillion in required reserves that also receive interest); that assumes, the Fed does not grow its balance sheet in the interim (in an effort to generate more “profits” for the Fed) and would not reduce its payouts in the interim as a precaution because bonds held on the Fed’s books may be trading in the market at substantially lower levels.

Should interest rates move up, the Treasury may no longer be able to rely on the Fed to finance the deficit (while the Fed denies the purposes of its policies is to finance the deficit, the Fed is buying a trillion dollars in debt as the government is running a trillion dollar deficit).

Biggest risk: economic growth?

In our surveys, inflation tends to be on top of investors’ minds, no matter how often government surveys show us that inflation is not the problem. Should inflation expectations continue to rise – and a reasonable person may be excused for coming to that conclusion given that the Fed appears to be increasingly focusing on employment rather than inflation – bonds might be selling off, putting upward pressure on the cost of borrowing for the government.

But if we assume inflation is indeed not an imminent concern (keep in mind that the Fed is also buying TIPS and, thus, distorting important inflation gauges in the market), we only need to look back at the spring of this year when a couple of good economic indicators got some investors to conclude that a recovery is finally under way. What happened? The bond market sold off rather sharply! A key reason why the Fed is increasingly moving towards employment targeting is to prevent a recurrence, namely a market-driven tightening, pushing up mortgage costs.

The government should be grateful that we have this “muddle-through” economy. Let some of that money that’s been printed “stick;” let the economy kick into high gear. In that scenario, the “good news” may well be reflected in a bond market that turns into a bear market.

Historically, when interest rates move higher in an economic recovery, the U.S. dollar is no beneficiary because foreigners tend to hold lots of Treasuries: should the bond market turn into a bear market, foreigners historically tend to wait for the end of the tightening cycle before recommitting to U.S. Treasuries.

The point we are making is that for bonds to sell off and the dollar to be under pressure, we don’t need inflation to show its ugly head; we don’t need China or Japan to engage in financial warfare by dumping their Treasury holdings. All we may need is economic growth! And while Timothy Geithner has studiously been trying to extend the average duration of U.S. debt, Ben Bernanke at the Fed has thrown him a curveball.

Perception is reality

One only needs to look at Spain to see that a long average duration of government debt is no guarantor against a debt crisis. Spain has an average maturity of government debt of 6 years, yet it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that borrowing at 6% in the market is not sustainable given the total debt burden. As such, markets tend to shiver when confidence is lost, even if, technically, governments could cling on for a while when the cost of borrowing surges.

History may repeat itself

It was only 11 years ago that the US government paid and average of 6% on its debt. Sure the average cost of borrowing has been coming down. But no matter what scenarios we paint, if the average cost of borrowing can come down to almost 2% from 6%, we believe it is entirely possible to have the reverse take place over the next 11 years. Given the additional risks the Fed’s actions have introduced, the timing could well be condensed. But even if not, we believe it is irresponsible for policy makers to pretend interest rates may stay low forever (except, maybe, Tim Geithner’s steps to increase the average maturity of government debt; but as pointed out, his efforts may be overwhelmed by those of the Fed).

Fiscal Cliff

What’s so sad about the discussion about the so-called fiscal cliff is that even the initial Republican proposal results in approximately $800 billion deficits each year. Financed at an average 2%, this would add over $900 billion in interest expenses over ten years; financed at an average 4%, it would add almost $2 trillion in interest expense over ten years. Mind you, this is a politically unrealistic, conservative proposal. Democrats pretend we don’t even have a long-term sustainability problem, only that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share.

In our humble opinion, both Republicans and Democrats are distracted. In many ways, the simultaneous increase in taxes and cut in expenditures of the fiscal cliff is akin to European style austerity: if the cliff were to take place in its entirety, we would a) suffer a significant economic slow down; b) continue to run deficits exceeding 3% of GDP before factoring in any slowdown; and c) still not have fixed entitlements.

Entitlements

While our discussion focused on $11 trillion in Treasury securities, the so-called “unfunded liabilities” go much further than the $5 trillion in accounting liabilities set aside. Depending on the actuarial assumptions, unfunded liabilities may be as high as $50 trillion to $200 trillion or higher.

In our assessment, the only way to tame the explosion of government liabilities over the medium term is to tame entitlements. But it is very difficult to cut back on promises made. As Europe has shown us, the only language that policy makers understand may be that of the bond market. As such, unless and until the bond market imposes entitlement reform, we are rather pessimistic that our budget will be put on a sustainable footing. Put another way, things are not bad enough for policy makers to make the tough decisions.

Different from Europe, however, the U.S. has a current account deficit. As a result, a misbehaving bond market may have far greater negative ramifications for the dollar than the strains in the Eurozone bond markets had for the Euro. In the Eurozone, the current account is roughly in balance; while there was a flight out of weaker Eurozone countries, that flight was mostly intra-Eurozone towards Germany and Northern European countries.

So while the default risk of U.S. Treasuries may be less than that of Eurozone members, the risks to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar might be substantially higher. On that note, while the Fed has indicated to buy another approximately $1 trillion in assets over the next year, we would not be surprised to see the balance sheet of the more demand-driven European Central Bank shrink as some banks pay back loans from the Long-Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) early.

In early January, we will be publishing our outlook for 2013; Please also sign up for our newsletter to be informed as we discuss global dynamics and their impact on gold and currencies. Additionally, please join us for our upcoming Webinar on Tuesday, January 15th, 2013.

Axel Merk

Axel Merk is President and Chief Investment Officer, Merk Investments.

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, Gold, US Debt Crisis Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Gold In The News – German Gold, Gold Confiscation, Technical Charts, New Perth Mint Coins

November 1, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Gold news from around the web-

Gold Confiscation?

Are those predicting the confiscation of gold by the U.S. government simply seeking headlines or seriously misguided?  Jim Sinclair has the answer.

I am sick of all this confiscation talk of gold and even gold companies. It emanates from gold people who do not know or understand the history of gold. We condemn MSM for inaccurate, false and misleading news. I condemn gold writers who practice sensationalism, who offer their opinions as if they were facts and simply make things up out of thin air as if they were insiders privy to things that no one else is. Right now leaders of this community are printing stuff as misleading as MOPE or MSM ever have.

Eric De Groot put what I have been trying to teach you perfectly today. In the 1930s gold was to the monetary system what QE is today, a means of increasing the supply of money for Fed and Treasury discretionary use. The US Secretary of the Treasury and President Roosevelt set the gold price higher at their daily breakfast together arbitrarily. Higher because to create money then the system required a higher value of gold to have more money outstanding. This is why Roosevelt ordered the confiscation of gold in order to unfold his type of monetary stimulation, his QE. This is what confiscationophiles simply do not know.

 Your fears and the outrageous untrue statement by the Scottish hedge fund manager are based on totally wrong reasoning and misunderstanding. Gold was not confiscated because it was going up in price. Gold’s order of confiscation came as a tool of monetary stimulation in order to create monetary creation in order to attempt to increase employment.

So, Exactly Where is Germany’s Gold?

The Germans, tough with monetary policy, turn out to be wimps when it comes to safeguarding their own massive 3,396 ton gold stockpile.  Turns out that the Germans, who allegedly hold most of their gold in French, British and U.S. vaults, never even bothered to conduct a physical audit of their holdings – talk about trusting your neighbors! After severe criticism and a national “Bring Back Our Gold” campaign, the Bundesbank is finally promising to conduct audits and bring their gold back home.  MarketWatch wonders if the expatriation of German gold may be the beginning of a move to a gold backed currency.

Gold and Silver Technical Charts

Some really amazing gold and silver charts suggest that we may be in the initial stages of a massive gold and silver rally.

Gold and Silver – The Ideal Holiday Gift

A stunning selection of new gold and silver coins from The Perth Mint  provides the answer to “what should I get her for Christmas?”  Included in the November product releases are some unique rectangular colored silver coins.

Gold Through the Centuries

One of the largest Roman gold coin hoards every found was discovered in Great Britain.  The coins are approximately 1600 years old.  Any guesses on what $10,000 of U.S. currency buried today would be worth in the year 3612??

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, Gold, Perth Mint, Silver Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Weak Dollar Policies Could Result In Trade Wars and Higher Consumer Prices

October 31, 2012 by Leave a Comment

By Axel Merk

Our leaders want a weaker dollar and a stronger Chinese renminbi (RMB). That’s our assessment based on recent comments by President Obama, presidential hopeful Romney and Federal Reserve (Fed) Chair Bernanke. If you join them in that call, OK, just be careful what you wish for, or at least consider taking action to protect your portfolio.

In the past few weeks, Bernanke has become ever more vocal in encouraging emerging market countries to allow their currencies to appreciate against the dollar; and Obama and Romney have both been advocating for a weaker dollar versus specifically the Chinese RMB. In the recent presidential debates Romney continued his call for declaring China a currency manipulator, and Obama proudly stated that the RMB had appreciated 11% against the dollar since he took office. It has actually been about 9% according to the data we look at; nevertheless, the point that both were clearly trying to make is that a weaker U.S. dollar is in our economic best interests. Likewise, in an IMF speech Bernanke essentially admitted that accommodative monetary policy in the U.S. causes upward pressure on foreign exchange rates between emerging market currencies and the dollar, and suggested that foreign central banks allow that dollar depreciation to take hold, rather than intervene to prevent it.

It may be superficially plausible that RMB appreciation is the key to alleviating our economic woes, by promoting exports and therefore jobs in the U.S. However, while lowering one’s currency might give a boost to corporate earnings for the next quarter (as foreign earnings are translated into higher U.S. dollar gains), it is difficult to imagine that the U.S. can truly compete on price – the day we export sneakers to Vietnam will hopefully never come. An advanced economy, in our assessment, must compete on value, not price. Without discussing the merits of this argument in more detail, let’s look at the flip side of a stronger RMB, which is a weaker dollar and potentially higher prices for goods imported from China. Notice that there is a lot of table pounding about China stealing manufacturing jobs, but no protest when it comes to the low prices consumers enjoy as a result of China trade. After all, not all Americans are producers of export goods, but certainly all are consumers of goods in general, many of which are imported from China and emerging Asia.

Even if we accept the argument that a weaker dollar may be good for certain sectors and perhaps for the U.S. economy at large, not all will benefit, in particular, not retirees facing diminished purchasing power. Retirees would not see the nominal wage increases that the active labor force could expect to experience, meaning rising costs of living without an offsetting rise in income, which may only be coming from a fixed-income portfolio still earning zero interest as Bernanke has made it clear that “policy accommodation will remain even as the economy picks up.”

We agree with our policy makers to the extent that the dollar may be generally overvalued and many Asian currencies undervalued; and therefore the path of least resistance may lead to Asian currencies grinding higher across the board. The below chart illustrates this trend. China’s appetite for currency appreciation against the dollar may have a good deal to do with its currency’s relative strength or weakness compared to its Asian neighbors, who are export competitors. As these other Asian currencies appreciate they provide the RMB more room to appreciate as well.

Asian Currency Relative to Dollar

While many Asian currencies may rise over the coming years, we think Asian countries like China, that are moving up the value-added chain, are in a better position to handle more rapid currency appreciation than others. As production processes become more complex, it is harder for low-price competitors to easily replicate that output. As such, higher value-added products provide China’s exporters with greater pricing power in the global market, limiting the need and effectiveness of a cheap currency policy. Additionally, over the medium to longer term, as the Chinese economy continues to grow and the middle class becomes wealthier, domestic consumption will play a larger and larger role in their GDP, and that shift away from economic reliance on the American consumer will also diminish the need for an export oriented currency policy. In fact, we believe a stronger RMB will be beneficial for the Chinese consumer and help that transition along.

The gradual shift towards greater domestic consumption is occurring in many other Asian countries that have been following the export growth model and, as Bernanke puts it, that “systematically resist currency appreciation.” As we can see in the above chart many Asian currencies haven’t been resisting appreciation as much as you might think, and this gets to Obama’s point on the RMB appreciation since he took office. From an investment standpoint, 9% in four years isn’t a bad return in this environment; it would take over 78 years to reach that return rolling 3-month T-bills at their current yield of 0.11%.

American consumers (and Chinese exporters) have been subsidized by the artificially weak Chinese currency, to the detriment of Chinese consumers who have faced stunted purchasing power. However, we believe this dynamic will continue to change and suggest that a stronger RMB is very likely not only on Bernanke, Obama, and Romney’s wish list, but increasingly in China’s own interest. That would mean the tables getting turned on the American consumer.

By the way, there is a good reason no President has called China a currency manipulator. Once China is labeled a currency manipulator, it sets in motion a process in which Congress takes up the matter. Without going into detail, our recent Presidents have preferred to seize rather than delegate power: by calling China a currency manipulator, the President would essentially tell Congress to have a stab at the issue; whereas the President has far more flexibility at the executive branch in dealing with China without consulting with Congress. Once Congress gets involved, the threat of a trade war does become more likely. Even if Romney is correct that China may have more to lose in a trade war, our analysis shows that the currency of a country with a trade deficit may be under more strain in a trade war. That may well be what Romney wants to achieve, but again, be careful what you wish for.

If part of what investors consume is produced in another region, then holding some local currency or local currency denominated assets may be prudent. American consumers should ultimately not be concerned with the number of dollars in the bank, but rather with what those dollars can buy in terms of real goods and services. We suggest that Bernanke may be the currency manipulator to be more afraid of, and moreover, that our de-facto weak dollar policy may be reason to take the purchasing power risk of the dollar into account.

Please register for our Webinar on Thursday, November 8th, 2012, where we will dive into implications of US policies on China and Asian currencies in more detail. Also sign up to our newsletter to be informed as we discuss global dynamics and their impact on gold and currencies.

Axel Merk

Axel Merk is President and Chief Investment Officer, Merk Investments

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, US Debt Crisis Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Federal Reserve Policies Have Put The Nation On The Road To Economic Chaos

October 27, 2012 by 4 Comments

By Axel Merk

The FOMC has crossed the Rubicon: our analysis suggests that the Federal Open Market Committee is deliberately ignoring data on both growth and inflation. At best, the FOMC’s intention might have been to not rock the markets two weeks before the election. At worst, the FOMC has given up on market transparency in an effort to actively manage the yield curve (short-term to long-term interest rates):

  • On growth, economic data, including the unemployment report, have clearly come in better than expected since the most recent FOMC meeting. FOMC practice dictates that progress in economic growth is acknowledged in the statement. Instead, the assessment of the economic environment is verbatim. Had the FOMC given credit to the improved reality, the market might have priced in earlier tightening. The FOMC chose to ignore reality, possibly afraid of an unwanted reaction in the bond market.
  • On inflation, the FOMC correctly points out that inflation has recently picked up “somewhat.” However, it may be misleading to blame the increase on higher energy prices, and then claim that “longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.” Not so, suggests an important inflation indicator monitored by the Fed and economists alike: 5-year forward, 5-year inflation expectations broke out when the Fed announced “QE3”, its third round of quantitative easing where the emphasis shifted from a focus on inflation to a focus on employment. This gauge of inflation measures the market’s expectation of annualized inflation over a five year period starting five years out, ignoring the near term as it may be influenced by short-term factors:
Inflation Expectations

The chart shows that we have broken out of a 2 standard deviation band and that the breakout occurred at the time of the QE3 announcement. In our assessment, the market disagrees with the FOMC’s assertion that longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable. At best, the FOMC ignores this development because they also look at different metrics (keep in mind that the Fed’s quantitative easing programs manipulate the very rates we are trying to gauge here) or has a different notion of what it considers longer-term stable inflation expectations. At worst, however, the FOMC is afraid of admitting to the market that QE3 is perceived as inflationary.

In our assessment, inflation expectations have clearly become elevated. Ignoring reality by ignoring growth and inflation may not be helpful to the long-term credibility of the Fed. Fed credibility is important, as monetary policy becomes much more expensive when words alone don’t move markets anymore.

Please sign up to our newsletter to be informed as we discuss global dynamics and their impact on gold and currencies.

Axel Merk

Axel Merk is President and Chief Investment Officer, Merk Investments
Merk Investments, Manager of the Merk Funds

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, US Debt Crisis Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Would A Romney Victory Cause Gold To Collapse?

October 25, 2012 by Leave a Comment

By Axel Merk & Yuan Fang

Monetary Cliff?

As the presidential election is rapidly approaching, little attention seems to be getting paid to the question that may affect voters the most: what will happen to the “easy money” policy? Federal Reserve (Fed) Chairman Bernanke’s current term will expire in January 2014 and Republican candidate Mitt Romney has vowed that if elected, he would replace Bernanke. Given the tremendous amount of money the Fed has “printed” and the commitment to keep interest rates low until mid-2015, the election may impact everything from mortgage costs to the cost of financing the U.S. debt. Trillions are at stake, as well as the fate of the U.S. dollar.

Should Obama be re-elected, Bernanke might continue to serve as Fed Chairman; other likely candidates include the Fed’s Vice Chairman Janet Yellen and Obama’s former economic advisor Christina Romer. With any of them, we expect the Fed policy to be continuingly dominated by the dovish camp, and moving – with varying enthusiasm depending on the pick of Fed Chair – towards a formal employment target, further diluting any inflation target. We are not only talking about Bernanke and the other two candidates’ individual policy stances (though all three are known as monetary “doves”, i.e. generally favoring more accommodative monetary policy), but also the composition of voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), as we will discuss below.

If Romney were to be elected, a front-runner for the Fed Chairman post is Glenn Hubbard, Dean of Columbia Business School and a top economic adviser to Romney. Hubbard has expressed his skepticism about the mechanism that Bernanke used to boost the economy. In our analysis, an FOMC led by Hubbard (or another Romney appointee) will be leaning toward mopping up the liquidity sooner. Extending forward guidance to mid-2015 will also be under question. It will no doubt add uncertainty to monetary policy and increase market volatility.

More importantly, however, a “hawkish” Fed Chair, i.e. one that favors monetary tightening, might put to the test Bernanke’s claim that he can raise rates in “15 minutes”. Technically, of course, the Fed can raise rates by paying interest on reserves held at the Fed or sell assets acquired during various rounds of quantitative easing. The challenge, no matter who the Fed Chair is going to be, is the impact any tightening might have on the economy. Bernanke has cautioned many times that rates should not be raised before the recovery is firmly “entrenched.” What he is referring to is that market forces may still warrant further de-leveraging. If the stimulus is removed too early, so Bernanke has argued, the economy might fall back into recession. A more hawkish Fed Chair, such as a Glenn Hubbard, may accept a recession as an acceptable cost to exit monetary largesse; however, because there is so much stimulus in the economy, just a little bit of tightening may well have an amplified effect in slowing down the economy. Keep in mind that European countries are complaining when their cost of borrowing rises to 4%, calling 7% unsustainable. Given that the U.S. budget deficit is higher than that of the Eurozone as a whole, and that our fiscal outlook is rather bleak, it remains to be seen just how much tightening the economy can bear. Our forecast is that with a Republican administration, we are likely to get a rather volatile interest rate environment, as any attempt to tighten may have to be reversed rather quickly. Fasten your seatbelts, as shockwaves may be expressed in the bond market and the “tranquility” investors have fled to by chasing U.S. bonds may well come to an end. Foreigners that have historically been large buyers of U.S. bonds may well reduce their appetite to finance U.S. debt, with potentially negative implications for the U.S. dollar.

Let’s dig a little deeper and look at who actually decides on interest rates: it is the voting members of the FOMC that ultimately make the imminent monetary policy decisions, rather than the noise creating pundits and non-voting members.

Three factors will further boost the dovish camp, which already dominates the FOMC committee:

    • Two previously vacant seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors were recently filled by Jeremy Stein and Jerome Powell this May. Like other board governors, both Stein and Powell appear to be in favor of Bernanke’s dovish policy. Stein was a Harvard economics professor and used to be more ‘hawkish’ before he took office. But in his first keynote speech as a board governor on Oct. 11, Stein openly supported QE3 and called for continuing asset purchases in absence of a substantial improvement in the labor market. Jerome Powell was a lawyer and private equity investor as well as an undersecretary under George H.W. Bush. Powell has also expressed support for more easing, with inflation an afterthought. Their appointments not only fill all voting seats at the Fed for the first time since 2006, but also further increase the board’s dove-hawk ratio from 9-1 to 11-1. The influence will also carry on to the following years, as board governors hold non-rotating voting rights.
    • Additionally, four current voting members will be replaced next year, including Richmond Fed president Jeffrey Lacker, who has dissented in every FOMC meeting this year. Regional Fed Presidents, unlike Governors, vote on a rotating basis. In 2013, Kansas Fed president Esther George is likely to be the only voting member who appears to hold a hawkish stance. George has expressed her opposition to QE3 and the Fed’s balance sheet expansion, echoing her predecessor Thomas Hoenig’s hawkish tone. But given that she is not a Ph.D. economist, her passion and influence is likely to be more on regulatory than monetary issues; we doubt she will be as vocal as Hoenig or Lacker. In our assessment, the FOMC committee may be “über-dovish” in 2013.
    • Finally, Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, who was known as a monetary policy hawk, has recently shifted to a more dovish stance. He surprised the market with remarks supporting the Fed’s decision to keep rates extraordinarily low until the unemployment rate has fallen below 5.5%, as long as inflation remains below 2.25%. Kocherlakota will be a voting member in 2014, but his shift of stance will weaken the hawkish voice. With fewer dissidents on the board, the Fed may continue to err firmly on the side of inflation and stick to to its mid-2015 low rate pledge.

No matter who wins the election, we will see a policy dilemma for the Fed in the coming years: On the one side, should economic data continue to surprise to the upside, it will be increasingly difficult for the Fed to carry on its dovish policies. On the other side, if the Fed were to abandon its current commitment, we foresee rising market volatility. The U.S. economy is likely to face a “monetary policy cliff” in addition to the “fiscal cliff”. With easy money, inflation risks may well continue to rise, possibly imposing higher bond yields (lower bond prices) and a weaker dollar. With tight money, the Fed may induce a bond selloff. Historically, because foreigners are active buyers of U.S. bonds, the dollar has weakened during early and mid-phases of tightening, as the bond bull market turns into a bear market. It’s only during late phases of tightening that the dollar has historically benefited as the bond market turns yet again into a bull market. We encourage investors to review their portfolios to account for the risk that bonds may be selling off, taking the U.S. dollar along with it.

Please sign up to our newsletter to be informed as we discuss global dynamics and their impact on gold and currencies. Please also register for our Webinar on Thursday, November 8th, 2012, where we will focus on implications on China and Asian currencies.

Axel Merk

Axel Merk is President and Chief Investment Officer, Merk Investments

Yuan Fang is a Financial Analyst at Merk Investments and member of the portfolio management group.

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, Gold, US Debt Crisis Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

The Fed’s Efforts To “Print” New Jobs Is Failing – What Does The Fed Do Next?

October 25, 2012 by Leave a Comment

In an effort to expand credit and spur job creation, the Federal Reserve has massively expanded its balance sheet with the most aggressive monetary policies in the history of the Federal Reserve.  Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed instituted two rounds of quantitative easing under which over $2.75 trillion of debt securities were purchased by, in effect, printing money.

The first two phases of quantitative easing resulting in soaring stock and gold prices but did little to reduce the unemployment rate which has remained stubbornly high.  In early September, Fed Chairman Bernanke went all in on his aggressive monetary policies with the announcement of QE3 under which the Fed will conduct open-ended asset purchases.

The Federal Reserve said it will expand its holdings of long-term securities with open-ended purchases of $40 billion of mortgage debt a month in a third round of quantitative easing as it seeks to boost growth and reduce unemployment.

“We’re looking for ongoing, sustained improvement in the labor market,” Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in his press conference today in Washington following the conclusion of a two-day meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee. “There’s not a specific number we have in mind. What we’ve seen in the last six months isn’t it.”

Stocks jumped, sending benchmark indexes to the highest levels since 2007, and gold climbed as the Fed said it will continue buying assets, undertake additional purchases and employ other policy tools as appropriate “if the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially.”

Bernanke is enlarging his supply of unconventional tools to attack unemployment stuck above 8 percent since February 2009, a situation he called a “grave concern.”

Bernanke said the open-ended purchases would continue until the labor market improved significantly. “We’re not going to rush to begin to tighten policy,” he said. “We’re going to give it some time to make sure that the economy is well established.”

While the U.S. has “enjoyed broad price stability” since the mid-1990s, Bernanke said, “the weak job market should concern every American.”

Although Bernanke’s goal is laudable, many consider his extreme monetary policies ineffective while massively debasing the value of the U.S. currency.  Printing money is not the primary precursor for job creation or increased national wealth, and the latest economic results prove this assertion.  Sales revenues of America’s largest corporations have declined for six consecutive quarters and companies have fired the largest number of employees since 2010.

Courtesy Wall Street Journal

If economic conditions continue to deteriorate, expect Bernanke to implement even more extreme unconventional monetary policies,  all of which would involve money printing on an unimaginable scale.

The ludicrous assertion by Fed Chairman Bernanke that the U.S. has “enjoyed broad price stability” since the 1990’s is revealed as an outright falsehood by the Fed’s own statistics on the loss of purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.  Meanwhile, gold, the only currency with any intrinsic value is reflecting the true extent to which the U.S. dollar has been debased by Fed policies.  As the economy weakens and the Fed expands its monetary madness, the price of gold will continue to soar.

 

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, Gold, US Debt Crisis Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Why The Fed Is Committed To Higher Inflation

September 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment

By Axel Merk

Is the Fed’s goal to debase the U.S. dollar? The Federal Reserve’s announcement of a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) might have been the worst kept secret, yet the dollar plunged upon the announcement. Here we share our analysis on what makes the FOMC tick, to allow investors to position themselves for what may be ahead.

We have heard policy makers justify bailouts and monetary activism because, as we are told, these are no ordinary times: extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Acronyms are needed, as we are told that things are complicated. We respectfully disagree. It’s quite simple: we have had a credit driven boom; we have had a credit bust; and Fed Chairman Bernanke thinks monetary policy can fix it. Merk Senior Economic Adviser and former St. Louis Fed President William Poole points us to the fact that the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea have one thing in common: monetary policy could not have compensated for the shortcomings of the respective regimes. The successor nations to the Soviet Union, as well as China had economic booms because they opened up, not because of printing presses being deployed. Monetary policy affects nominal price levels, not structural deficiencies. In the U.S., the economy may be held back because of uncertainty over future taxes (the “fiscal cliff”) and regulation; monetary policy cannot fix these.

But the above experiences have something else in common: they refer to lessons of recent decades. Bernanke, in contrast, is a student of the Great Depression, the 1930s. Bernanke firmly believes that tightening monetary policy too early during the Great Depression was a grave mistake, prolonging the Depression. Never mind that there had been major policy blunders by the Roosevelt administration that might have been driving factors; Bernanke’s research squarely focuses on how history would have evolved differently had his prescription for monetary policy been implemented.

The reason why Bernanke thinks tightening too early after a credit bust is a grave mistake is because a credit bust unleashes deflationary market forces. Left untamed, a deflationary spiral may ensue driving many otherwise healthy businesses into bankruptcy. Nowadays, we hear “it’s a liquidity, not a solvency crisis.” With easy money, the Fed can stem the tide. Whenever the Fed has the upper hand, the glass is half full, “risk is on” as traders like to say; but then it appears that not quite enough money has been printed and, alas, the glass is half empty, “risk is off.” The high correlation across asset classes is, in our assessment, a direct result of the heavy involvement of policy makers. Sure, markets may move up when money is printed; the trouble is everything moves up in tandem, making it ever more difficult to find diversification, so that on the way down, investors find protection. It’s for that reason, by the way, that we focus on currencies: why bother taking on the noise of the equity markets if investors buy or sell securities merely because they try to front-run the next perceived intervention of policy makers? In our assessment, the currency markets are a great place to take a position on the “mania” of policy makers. Note that if one does not employ leverage, currencies are historically less risky than equities.

So we know Bernanke wants low interest rates. But there’s more to it: as we saw earlier this year, a string of good economic indicators sent the bond market into a nosedive. Treasuries were bailed out by subsequent mediocre economic news, allowing bond prices to recover. The challenge here, in our assessment of Bernanke’s thinking, is that the bond market can do the tightening for you. When Bernanke bragged in his Jackson Hole speech in late August that a well-behaved bond market is proof that his policies are well received, we had a more somber interpretation: the reason the bond market is well behaved is because the economy is in the doldrums. Let all the money that has been printed “stick”, i.e. let this economy kick into high gear. Sure, Bernanke says he can raise rates in 15 minutes (he can pay interest on deposits at the Fed), but given the leverage in the economy, any tightening that comes too early might undo all the “progress” that has been achieved so far. Differently said – and we are putting words into Bernanke’s mouth here – Bernanke has to err on the side of inflation.

But how do you err on the side of inflation, without the bond market throwing a fit? A central banker is most unlikely to ever call for higher inflation. You do it with “communication strategy”, a commitment to keeping interest rates low; you do it with quantitative easing, i.e. buying Mortgage-Backed and Treasury securities; you do it with Operation Twist, depressing yields by buying longer dated Treasury securities. But, “when inflation is already low…” as Bernanke stated in his 2002 “Helicopter Ben” speech, “the central bank should act more preemptively and more aggressively than usual.” How do you do that? First, you create an open-ended buying program, so that the market cannot price in all easing within moments of the announcements. And more importantly, you break the link between monetary policy and inflation. Bernanke wants to make sure investors realize that policy is now tied to a “substantial improvement in the labor market” rather than its inflation target. It’s only then that the Fed can go all out on promoting growth without having the bond market sell off.

Does it work? Judging from the initial market reaction, no. Bond prices have fallen, inflation expectations as expressed in the spreads between inflation protected Treasury securities (TIPS) and underlying Treasuries have shot higher. It might be because the dust from the Fed’s bombshell hasn’t settled; or it might be that the Fed hasn’t had time to intervene in the market by buying TIPS (while not extensively, the Fed has been buying TIPS on occasion) depressing inflation indicators.

Either way, however, many observers have wondered whether lowering interest rates a tad further is really the panacea the economy needs. Part of it is that mortgage rates aren’t falling at this stage, if for no other reason than banks have such dramatic backlogs, that they have little incentive to open the floodgates even more for further refinancing activity. But even without such backlogs, how many more projects are worth financing with the 10-year bond trading at 1.6% versus 1.8%? Interest rates are low, no matter how one slices it.

That leaves one other interpretation open. Don’t take our word for it, but read the 2002 Helicopter Ben speech: “Although a policy of intervening to affect the exchange value of the dollar is nowhere on the horizon today [in 2002], it’s worth noting that there have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation.” The argument here is that a lower dollar boosts exports and thus the economy. Ignored is the fact that Vietnam might try to compete on price, but an advanced economy should work hard to compete on value added. As such, we are only providing a dis-incentive to invest in competitiveness if the Fed’s printing press provides the illusion of competitiveness. We use the term printing press because it is Bernanke in the aforementioned 2002 speech that refers to the Fed’s buying of securities (QEn) as the electronic equivalent of the printing press.

So don’t let anyone fool you. Things are not complicated. In our assessment, the Fed may be out to debase the dollar. Investors may want to get rid of the textbook notion of a risk-free asset, as the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar may increasingly be at risk. There is no risk-free alternative, but investors may want to consider a managed basket of currencies including gold, akin to how some central banks manage their reserves, as a way to mitigate the risk that the Fed is getting what we think it is bargaining for.

Please sign up to our newsletter to be informed as we discuss global dynamics and their impact on gold and currencies. Engage with me directly at Twitter.com/AxelMerk to comment on Merk Insights and to receive provide real-time updates on the economy, currencies, and global dynamics.

Axel Merk
President and Chief Investment Officer, Merk Investments
Merk Investments, Manager of the Merk Funds

Filed Under: Currency debasement, Featured, Gold, US Debt Crisis Tagged With: , , , ,