Many years ago, I read a series of books by a financial expert calling himself "Adam Smith". In one, he spoke to an investment manager who had bought a holding in a railway, I think the Santa Fe, and asked him why so, since the company was somewhere around bankrupt. The manager replied that he was looking at the value of the tangible assets still owned by the company - land, rolling stock etc.
Railways tend to own a lot more land than the bit the rails run on. Is this a reason for Buffett and Soros to have gotten into that kind of business?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Not yet, the crash - Puru Saxena
Puru Saxena submits "The Solitary Bear" in today's Daily Reckoning Australia. He agrees with Marc Faber that there's bubbles in equities and commodities, but thinks we have some years yet before the crisis hits.
This is because he can't see central bankers having the virility to raise interest rates sufficiently to curb inflation, which is rotting savers' money (the "solitary bear" market being cash). Why the reluctance? "The central banks know full well that with debt at its current level, such drastic measures would probably cause a global depression, widespread unemployment and social unrest. So, they will try and avoid or delay this outcome as much as possible..."
We're practically forced to invest in something. The danger, particularly for small guys, is not knowing when to head for the exit, ahead of the rest of the panicky crowd. It's a tough one:
"...investors will have to become more selective when making decisions and deploying their capital. For maximum success and safety, I would urge you to invest your capital during pullbacks whilst avoiding overstretched markets. Despite all the talk of "doom and gloom", this strategy should continue to deliver reasonable returns in the period ahead."
I wonder whether the "gloom and doom" is in part an oblique reference to Marc Faber, whose website is self-deprecatingly named gloomboomdoom.com. See Faber's comments in the Market Oracle round-table discussion yesterday (previous post) - he, too, admits he can't call the turn but forecasts a continuing rise in equities (except maybe emerging markets) relative to cash - but not a rise in real terms. Faber is looking, I suspect, for quiet bargains in commodities and resources, e.g. low-priced agricultural land.
This is because he can't see central bankers having the virility to raise interest rates sufficiently to curb inflation, which is rotting savers' money (the "solitary bear" market being cash). Why the reluctance? "The central banks know full well that with debt at its current level, such drastic measures would probably cause a global depression, widespread unemployment and social unrest. So, they will try and avoid or delay this outcome as much as possible..."
We're practically forced to invest in something. The danger, particularly for small guys, is not knowing when to head for the exit, ahead of the rest of the panicky crowd. It's a tough one:
"...investors will have to become more selective when making decisions and deploying their capital. For maximum success and safety, I would urge you to invest your capital during pullbacks whilst avoiding overstretched markets. Despite all the talk of "doom and gloom", this strategy should continue to deliver reasonable returns in the period ahead."
I wonder whether the "gloom and doom" is in part an oblique reference to Marc Faber, whose website is self-deprecatingly named gloomboomdoom.com. See Faber's comments in the Market Oracle round-table discussion yesterday (previous post) - he, too, admits he can't call the turn but forecasts a continuing rise in equities (except maybe emerging markets) relative to cash - but not a rise in real terms. Faber is looking, I suspect, for quiet bargains in commodities and resources, e.g. low-priced agricultural land.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Marc Faber: bonds turning bearish, stocks to lose real value
Marc Faber and others give their investment views today on The Market Oracle. A quote from Faber:
We are now at the onset of a major bear market in bonds worldwide that should bring interest rates above the level in 1981 when US Treasuries were yielding over 15 per cent. But this process will take at least 10 years. In this environment stocks will not do well in real terms but will rise in nominal terms. How high will depend on (US Federal Reserve chairman Ben) Bernanke's money printing presses.
I think I have already suggested that, adjusted for inflation, stockmarkets have already fallen far below their 1999 positions, and this looks like confirmation that more of the same is expected.
We are now at the onset of a major bear market in bonds worldwide that should bring interest rates above the level in 1981 when US Treasuries were yielding over 15 per cent. But this process will take at least 10 years. In this environment stocks will not do well in real terms but will rise in nominal terms. How high will depend on (US Federal Reserve chairman Ben) Bernanke's money printing presses.
I think I have already suggested that, adjusted for inflation, stockmarkets have already fallen far below their 1999 positions, and this looks like confirmation that more of the same is expected.
Is gold a bargain?
In Monday's The Daily Reckoning, Richard Daughty notes that annually, the US is creating 24 times more new money than the world is producing in new gold at current prices, and he comes to the obvious conclusion: "Planetary Super Bargain".
But there are other ways to do the figures. The same edition of TDR reveals that we already have 150,000 tonnes of gold above ground, so 2,500 new-mined tonnes per year represents 1.67% p.a., compared with the 12% increase in the US M3 money supply. Okay, that looks like a mismatch of supply and potential demand, but this particular ratio is 7.2 times, rather than 24.
Another thought: gold and paper notes are not the only two things in the economy. People have other things to spend their money on, such as their rapidly-growing debts. And if we accept the worst-case future scenario, maybe tins of baked beans and boxes of ammunition will be in even greater demand.
Also, how far has the gold price already factored-in inflation? Using figures from Kitco.com's website, I've compared the average London PM fix in June 2002 with today's New York spot price. Per ounce, gold has gone from $356.53 to $642.50 in 5 years, a rise of around 80% overall. This equates to some 12.5% compound per annum - rather similar to the M3 figure previously quoted. So maybe gold is doing its traditional thing of storing value, more or less, rather than being a sort of asset Cinderella about to hit the big time.
But then again, I could be wrong.
But there are other ways to do the figures. The same edition of TDR reveals that we already have 150,000 tonnes of gold above ground, so 2,500 new-mined tonnes per year represents 1.67% p.a., compared with the 12% increase in the US M3 money supply. Okay, that looks like a mismatch of supply and potential demand, but this particular ratio is 7.2 times, rather than 24.
Another thought: gold and paper notes are not the only two things in the economy. People have other things to spend their money on, such as their rapidly-growing debts. And if we accept the worst-case future scenario, maybe tins of baked beans and boxes of ammunition will be in even greater demand.
Also, how far has the gold price already factored-in inflation? Using figures from Kitco.com's website, I've compared the average London PM fix in June 2002 with today's New York spot price. Per ounce, gold has gone from $356.53 to $642.50 in 5 years, a rise of around 80% overall. This equates to some 12.5% compound per annum - rather similar to the M3 figure previously quoted. So maybe gold is doing its traditional thing of storing value, more or less, rather than being a sort of asset Cinderella about to hit the big time.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Making money out of disaster?
The Contrarian Investors' Journal concludes its series on exploiting the possibility of a crash, by suggesting a series of short-term bets on the drop. It's a gamble, of course, but appeals to the Black Swan types who look for an "asymmetric outcome" - a disproportionately large payoff if the unlikely event happens. In other words, if the event has 100-1 odds against occurring, but the bet is offering 500-1, it seems worth taking - if you're a gambler.
But there's another risk involved: the "bookie" may not be willing, or able, to pay out. A prudent investor should consider counterparty risk.
But there's another risk involved: the "bookie" may not be willing, or able, to pay out. A prudent investor should consider counterparty risk.
More credible warnings
The Bank for International Settlements is joining its voice to the chorus, warning of excesses and a Thirties-style crash, as reported in the Wall Street Journal for 25 June.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Double indemnity
Dan Atkinson in the Mail on Sunday begins with what seems to be praise for the Chancellor's control of the economy, but goes on to note our growing indebtedness. The Bank of England figures he cites, comparing January 2000 with April 2007, show an increase in combined mortgage and consumer debt of around 116%; earnings rose only 31.7% over the same period.
To put it another way, as I calculate it, average indebtedness, adjusted for earnings, has increased by 63.9%. That's an awful lot of future spending power thrown away. The UK appears to have similar problems to the USA.
To put it another way, as I calculate it, average indebtedness, adjusted for earnings, has increased by 63.9%. That's an awful lot of future spending power thrown away. The UK appears to have similar problems to the USA.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)