Could deflation reduce the price of gold?

Last year, Robert McHugh predicted that the Dow would drop to 9,000, at least in terms of the price of gold. By January 22 this year, that had happened.

But people like Karl Denninger have been saying for a long time that the outcome of the credit crunch will be deflationary, and Mr Denninger is more emphatic than ever about that now. And that's not just the view of a private investor who backs his judgment with his own hard-earned money: the Bank for International Settlements (htp: Michael Panzner) also thinks deflation a serious possibility.

I recently did a little primitive chartism and thought it possible that the Dow might revert to what looks like a longer-term trend line that includes the 9,000 mark.

Turning to the price of gold, it has certainly soared over the past few years, but there's been debate about manipulation. Frank Veneroso thinks central banks have been releasing stocks of gold to keep the price down, yet at the same time it is suspected that speculators have been boosting the price, possibly using leveraging (borrowing extra cash to increase the returns).

So another way for McHugh's prediction to come true (again), would be for both the Dow and the gold price to come down together. The ratio implicit in his prediction (13.51) could imply that the Dow hits 9,000 and gold drops to about $666 per ounce, or about 30% off where it is now.

Not impossible, if leveraged speculators have to disinvest to repay their borrowings in a hurry; and it would still only be a reversion to where gold was two years ago (and even then, nearly double what it had been three years before that).

Gold: forget the charts

Gold is currently nearly $820/oz. and it's natural to look at the historical charts to see where this puts us. We did this yesterday.

But what use are the charts? The wiggly lines on them don't show the full context: the wild monetary inflation and cumulative trade and budget deficits of the past few years, which (if we believe the analysts) are unprecedented.

Instead of drawing conclusions from the graphs, we should be asking questions - especially, why hasn't gold zoomed more and earlier? After all, governments must feel that gold is at least a vestigial or potential measure of the worth of their currency; otherwise, they wouldn't be storing thousands of tons of the unproductive stuff in expensive facilities. So, why hasn't gold acted as the thermometer of this financial fever of the last, oh, seven years?

One answer is that the world gold market is small enough to be deliberately distorted. Frank Veneroso could be right: central banks may have been secretly drip-releasing portions of their bullion reserves. That would be to reassure us - or rather, kid us - that everything's under control. Since the gold price matters, it becomes important for officials to manipulate it, and so (according to this theory) the charts will actually tell us nothing.

Until the reserves get so low that the game can't continue. Central banks will suddenly get vertigo and freeze-cling to what they have left, and the gold market will explode, as confidence in the currency starts to collapse.

And Veneroso cottoned on early, simply because the scam worked too well. The smile was too bright, the walk a little too confident. If he's right - and I more than half suspect he is - we needn't bother with the past price data, or with worries about short-term corrections.

Veneroso: up to half the gold has gone

GoldSeek (November 1) relays Frank Veneroso's assessment that central banks may have disposed of up to 50% of their gold bullion:

... The manipulation of gold prices was first noticed in the 1990s by Frank AJ Veneroso, one of the world’s top investment strategists. As more gold bullion came onto the market depressing the price of gold, Veneroso believed the central banks were its source.

When queried, central banks denied Veneroso’s assertions. Central bank records, in fact, showed their gold reserves to be stable. But Veneroso was right and the central banks were lying. The gold moving onto the markets was indeed coming from central banks via their co-conspirators in capping gold, the investment banks.

Investment banks were borrowing central bank gold at 1 %, selling it thereby depressing gold’s price and investing the proceeds in higher yielding government debt; and, as long as the price of gold moved lower, the profits of investment banks increased (see The Manipulation of the Gold Market, http://www.gata.org/node/11).

The International Monetary Fund was complicit in this deceit as IMF regulations allowed central banks to count gold “swapped” or “loaned” as still being on deposit in their vaults. Veneroso now believes that up to 50 % of gold reserves claimed by central banks have already been sold—a fact that will be instrumental in our collective bet against central banks in their house of cards...

... Veneroso believes central banks sold 10,000–15,000 tons, equal to 320,000,000 to 500,000,000 ounces of gold over the last 20 years. Just imagine how high the price of gold would be if the central banks had not sold this staggering amount.

Today’s $800/oz. gold is a bargain—as is $2,000/oz. or $3,000 oz. gold—a bargain that exists only because central banks literally sold thousands of tons of our gold onto the market in their attempts to prove gold a poorer alternative to debt-based paper currencies.

Over a year ago, Veneroso estimated central banks had less than three years supply left to cap gold’s price. He also predicted the central banks would capitulate before then, keeping what little gold they had left. When this happens, the central bank subsidy of gold will end and the price of gold will skyrocket.

On the same site, Adrian Ash (November 2) looks at gold's disadvantages and decides that it is best defined not as a commodity, but as a currency:

Given that gold doesn't pay you anything in yield, interest or dividends – and that it does not have any real industrial value – the "investment motive" for gold can only be explained as desire to quit other assets. Or at least, to hold an asset entirely free from what drives other asset markets up and down.

... perhaps the gold market says investors are looking for protection against falling bond, real estate and equity values – as well as a falling US Dollar and slumping US economy.

So they are buying protection ahead of time. And to do that, they're buying gold – a wholly different asset from everything else.

One for the speculators. Meanwhile, perhaps the non-rich among us should take the precaution of paying off overdrafts, credit card debts and any other loans that can be called in at short notice.

Volume - shares and gold

(Picture source)

David Yu (Safe Haven, yesterday) comments on the unusually high volume of trade on the NASDAQ recently, and so expects a fallback sometime.

Peter Degraaf (GoldSeek, Friday) thinks gold can't be shorted or held down forever. He reminds us of the extraordinary volumes of bullion traded in 1967-68, and the explosive rise in the price when the containment attempt finally failed. Degraaf believes Frank Veneroso's theory that central banks are surreptitiously dumping gold again today, playing the same game - and expects the same result.

Backfire

Quick-Draw McGraw

Michael Panzner (Financial Armageddon, 11 October) comments on (and graphs) the increasingly synchronized movements of some speculative markets, including gold and tech shares. The range between these assets is tightening and may indicate that a turning point is due.

This would gel with other information: Marc Faber has said that he sees bubbles everywhere, including gold. True, it's also been reported recently that he's been buying into gold, but remember that he is something of an investment gunslinger and will have his own view about when to get out, too.

And Frank Veneroso thinks that the gold price rise is at least partly owing to heavy speculative backing from funds that may have to get out in a hurry, if a general market drop forces them to realize assets to settle accounts.

My feeling? We dudes shouldn't try to outdraw seasoned hands.

Gold price manipulation: Mylchreet backs Veneroso

I've previously noted Frank Veneroso's theory that central banks have been offloading gold to keep its price down, a ploy that obviously cannot work forever. Now here's Paul Mylchreet saying the same thing:

"Central banks have 10-15,000 tonnes of gold less than their officially reported reserves of 31,000" the Chevreux report announced. "This gold has been lent to bullion banks and their counterparties and has already been sold for jewelry, etc. Non-gold producers account for most [of the borrowing] and may be unable to cover shorts without causing a spike in the gold price."

In other words, "covert selling (via central bank lending) has artificially depressed the gold price for a decade [and a] strongly rising Gold Price could have severe consequences for US monetary policy and the US Dollar."

The conclusion? "Start hoarding," said Paul Mylchreet...

Frank Veneroso elaborates on the gold bubble

I am impressed by the courtesy of important people.

After reporting on his April 2007 presentation to World Bank people (see yesterday's post, "Gold bubble"), I emailed Frank Veneroso, and have received a reply from him today. I wanted to follow up on his essay of May 2001. Here's what I asked:

In 2001, you wrote a very intriguing article, posted on GATA, theorising that central banks actually hold much less physical gold than they pretend, because of loan-outs and possibly surreptitious selling. If I may, I should like to ask a few questions:

1. Are you still of that opinion?
2. What do you think is the present situation regarding gold holdings by central banks?
3. What evidence do we now have?

Here is his reply:

That was my opinion. It still is. However I gave ranges regarding that amount. I now believe that central bank loan outs and undisclosed sales were at the low end of my expectations. Why? I have no direct evidence. My evidence is the following.

I believe that we are near the end of a commodity bubble that is the largest in all history. The greatest extreme is in metals. Hedge funds have accumulated futures, forwards and physical on a scale that simply has no precedent. The greatest excesses are in base metals but these same funds all hold large gold positions. I believe that individual funds may hold positions in copper or gold that are as large in value as the ETF. I know that sounds unbelievable. But I have a great deal of evidence.

If this is so, the price of gold should be much higher. My only explanation for why it is not is that central bank holdings must be very large for this to happen.

I should add, I believe there will be a coming crash in the metals sector that will surface. There will be an unprecedented investor revulsion toward this sector.

Gold’s fundamentals are totally different from those of base metals and silver. However, because the same funds also hold gold, I cannot see how gold can escape forced liquidations from these portfolios.

Mr Veneroso has kindly given his permission to publish the above comments.

From the prospectus for a conference in New Orleans in 2006:

Frank Veneroso — Perhaps the most highly regarded market economist of our time, Frank Veneroso has advised countless governments, as well as the World Bank, on economic policy, served as a senior partner in one of the world's largest hedge funds, and is a confidant and private advisor to many of today's most influential investors and economic leaders.

He was among only a handful of analysts who clearly predicted the Tech Wreck, and followed it up with a deadly-accurate forecast of today's gold bull market.

Now, Mr. Veneroso is stunning the world with predictions of a major train wreck in no less than two high-flying sectors of the global economy. Virtually no one is expecting these dramatic events...

Golden bubble

A bubble shot through by a bullet - experiment described here

Here's a counter-blast to gold-bugs and fans of other metals:

In this long and dense presentation to the World Bank, delivered in April 2007 and revised/updated in July, Frank Veneroso says that commodities, including gold, nickel and copper, are already in a big bubble. He thinks an estimated $2 trillion in hedge funds, plus leveraging, is pumping the prices:

When it comes to metals, we see hedge fund speculation, hoarding and squeezing everywhere. Not only have some metals markets been driven far, far higher in this cycle compared to all past cycles; we see the same phenomenon across all metals. It is the combination of both the amplitude and breadth of the metals bubble that probably makes it the biggest speculation to the point of manipulation in the history of commodities. (Page 50)

Short runs costs have risen, but not long run costs. New sources are being exploited. And if recession hits, demand will drop:

... the historical pattern... for all commodities, suggests that, rather than seeing well above trend metals demand growth in the years to come as the consensus now projects, we are more likely to see outright declines in global demand for these metals as demand destruction takes hold. (Page 56)

For institutional investors, the "barren breed of metal" is unproductive compared to other assets:

... it is likely that the net nominal return to portfolios from investing in physical “stuff” has not been more than 1% per annum. By contrast, in a 3% inflation environment, bonds have yielded somewhere between 5% and 9% and equities have yielded somewhere between 8% and 11%. In effect, you gave up an immense amount of yield if you diversified out of bonds and stocks into commodities. You did gain by reducing overall portfolio volatility, but that gain was not large enough to offset the loss in yield. Diversifying with “stuff” did not enhance risk-adjusted returns. (Page 57)

So prices have been boosted by the futures market. And commodities as a market are small enough to be susceptible to "manipulation and collusion".

Readers of this blog will recall that Marc Faber recently said he saw bubbles everywhere, including commodities. Even if cash isn't king, it may be a pretender to the throne.