Sprechen Sie Gibberish?

Most days, I read something that reminds me how little I know. And then I read the financial pages.

Let's look at the UK's Daily Mail today, Money Mail section (pages 38-39). The headline is "Storm Warning" - anything from a week to seven years late, depending on your analysis of the underlying trends.

Sub-section: "Will it continue?" Answer: volatility "for the next few months", but "the markets are fundamentally sound in that that they are not over-priced". Yet we've only just heard from Marc Faber, saying that he expects "earnings disappointments" which will show up in the dividends and so alter the p/e ratio for the worse. And on page 66 of the same paper we see disappointments at UBS, Wal-Mart, Home Depot.

The chairman of a large financial advice firm is quoted saying, "You must put this sub-prime mortgage meltdown into perspective. We are talking about £100 billion of losses. [Wait for the punchline.] This sounds like a lot, but it is just one-tenth of the size of the public sector pension liability in this country." Very large, and mostly unfunded, pension liabilities.

Usually, I throw away the money sections of newspapers; I only read them today to see if they'd noticed what was going on. But then I remember that journalists told us for years not to bother with financial advisers, when we could buy our pensions direct from the six-figure wagemen at Equitable Life.

Could the German DM be stronger than the US dollar?

Another thought experiment. We've seen that if the US stock of gold (if it hasn't been replaced by IOUs) had to back all of its M3 money supply, then this would imply a gold price of something like $45,000 per ounce.

I've tried to find equivalent figures for Germany. The latest I can find is from May 1998, when M3 was then estimated at 3,243.70 billion DM. The Deutschmark is pegged at 0.51129 to the Euro, and the US dollar currently buys around 0.73581 Euros. So in dollar terms, German M3 is/was in the region of $1,559 billion.

The World Gold Council's June 2007 figures show Germany holding 3,442.5 tonnes of gold, and there are 31.1034768 grams to the troy ounce, so that's 110,678,945 ounces. If this gold covered all of Germany's M3 at the latter's 1998 estimate, it would imply a gold price of $14,085 per ounce.

Granted that German M3 must now be greater than in 1998, it still suggests that in terms of the ratio of gold to money supply, Germany's currency is around 3 times stronger than the USA's, or one-third as vulnerable in case of hyperinflation.

Silver to ride high?

Jason Hommel, in this 2 August report on SilverSeek.com, points out that, because of its industrial uses, silver is actually more scarce than gold.

He confirms my recent mathematical estimate that gold "ought" to equate to "$45,000/oz. to fully back all the M-3 created money supply", and repeats the market-manipulation theory:

...we have strong evidence of government manipulation in the gold market that has been going on since the 1990s. It is strongly suspected that the world's central banks have sold about one-half of their combined "reported" 33,000 tonnes (1 billion ozs.) of gold into the market to depress prices. Were it not for this selling, the gold price could well be $2,000 to $3,000 now!

He's predicting silver at $8,000 an ounce within 15 years - mostly because of hyperinflation, rather than real appreciation. In the nearer future, he thinks:

I see silver easily at $30 by early next year. Gold should be over $1,000 maybe $1,200.

That's something we'll be able to test more easily.

Gold going cold?

The gold price seems to have pretty much frozen, despite currency worries and stockmarket volatility. Peter Schiff is mystified, too though he expects "an explosive move for gold any day now". Yesterday's IHT article notes that "central banks in Europe have increased sales of reserves this year by 7.3 percent", continuing our theme of market manipulation, and a futures trader called Ron Goodis points out, "In times of a liquidity crunch, people want cash, and that's Treasuries, not speculative stuff like gold."

This is the problem for doomsters: the 'true' value of gold is most likely to be seen, not in moderately inflationary times, but when faith in paper currency has collapsed and hyperinflation is roaring through the system. It's not something one should wish for, even if it is needed to prove one's theory.

However, there's still the question of how much longer the market can be bought off with these gold stock sales. Eventually there will be nothing left to throw off the back of the troika at the pursuing wolves. And how much has been 'loaned' from stock already?

The article says, "Central banks are the biggest holders of gold, controlling about a fifth of all known supplies." So four-fifths is now in private hands, presumably. You may not feel the time is right to buy gold as a speculation or hedge, but if you had some already, would you sell it now?

Subprime update, plus Dow and gold

Here's iTulip's scathing video on the sub-prime lenders and special pleading from Jim Cramer; and according to this, it was $323 billion pumped into the banking system in 48 hours, not $266 billion.

The Dow closed down 207 points yesterday, anyway. Perhaps you can't pump up a burst balloon.

And gold, which one would think should have an inverse relation to the market, has lost $5 an ounce, too.

Things do look a little concerning.

Gold: a shell game without the pea?

If the gold bugs are right, why hasn't gold rocketed already? Maybe this presentation by Frank Veneroso, dated May 2001, explains it. It makes the case that there is more demand for gold than is officially recognised. This demand cannot be fully satisfied from the declining yields of gold mines, or reusing scrap.

Veneroso thinks that central banks have loaned out or sold much more gold than they admit. The World Gold Council states 30,374 tonnes in holdings (June 2007). This is down from the nearly 33,000 in mid-2001 when Veneroso was speaking, and even at that time he estimated 10,000 - 16,000 tonnes out on loan. Much of this will have ended up on ears, fingers and necks.

This theory of market intervention by surreptitious supply, implies that banks must eventually run down their stocks and be unable to continue with this tactic.

Veneroso speculated: "If the official sector is rational, it knows what will happen to the gold price when this large flow that is depressing the price abates and ultimately ends---the price will go up by a lot. Therefore, some rational central banks will not sell and lend down to the last ounce. Instead they will start to buy. So regardless of what has been happening in the gold market, if our data is correct, then, within a couple of years, whatever the official sector is doing, it will terminate and the gold price will rise."

His prediction was correct: gold has doubled in value since 2005. But as demand continues to grow over time, against a more limited supply, we should see further gold appreciation, which is what Marc Faber has predicted.

But some would go much further - Doug Casey, for instance. If we see the emergence of a very strong currency run by a country or cartel that controls a vital commodity like oil, the inflation in all fiat currencies will be cruelly exposed by contrast. Is it not possible that some might seek to use gold, in conjunction with other commodities, as an economic weapon?

And is it not interesting that the world's second largest gold hoarder, Germany, has disposed of hardly any of its stock in the last 7 years, when the average official reduction has been about 9%? Maybe Germany is taking a longer view and rather than buying gold, is being more discreet and simply not selling it. I wonder how much of its own stock Germany has loaned out?

UPDATE

Please see Monday's essay by James Turk, on Financial Sense. He thinks that the market must ultimately win against the official manipulators.

$42 gold: what is the future of the dollar, and central banks?

German 1,000 Mark note - overprinted to make it one billion Marks

I think I was right to puzzle over the footnote (in 6-point type!) to the US reserve accounts, which states that gold has been valued at $42 dollars an ounce and that certificates on that basis have been issued to the Federal Reserve.

It looked like dodgy accounting to me, and searching for some further clarification, I found this article in Gold-Eagle.com, dating from 2003. It's by Alex Wallenwein and the style hyperventilates somewhat, but here's some edited highlights:

[France and Germany's] new common currency, the euro, has taken on a characteristic that puts it into direct conflict with the US dollar.

The dollar is a purely debt based currency with an adverse relationship to gold. Gold is the dollar's nemesis. When the gold price goes up, confidence in the dollar decreases and people start selling dollars.. It's usually a sign of impending or prevailing inflation.

The euro, on the other hand, has a "positive" relationship to gold. The European Central Bank, and all the euro member's central banks, value their gold reserves quarterly at actual market prices. That means, as the price of gold goes up, the value of their currency goes up as well, and by signing the "Washington Accord" in 1999 they have announced to the world that the dollar's gold-suppression jig is up.

The dollar is still hamstrung by being tied to an artificial, government-decreed, quasi-official price of gold at the whopping rate of $42.222 per ounce. [See Title 31, United States Code, Section 5117(b).] Obviously, with the market price of gold currently above $330 (i.e. in 2003), that "official price" has nothing to do with the realities of the gold market. It is actually a remnant of the gold standard days when every dollar was immediately convertible into gold on demand, at a stated rate.

Being thus tied down, the US government and banking elite can never afford to let the price of gold float freely according to actual market forces...

This little difference in the valuation of gold makes the euro the undisputed, hands-down future winner of the euro vs dollar conflict... free market forces can never be violated with impunity for a very long time. They always reassert themselves - sooner or later.

The euro was constructed to take advantage of free market forces - especially the free market of gold. The dollar is anchored in a useless, repressive scheme that cannot allow market forces to prevail vis-a-vis gold.

Ergo, the dollar is doomed...

Once it is replaced as the world's reserve currency, the dollar - and with it the United States - will cease to be a world superpower... And all of America's current military might will [be laid to] waste when the international currency reserve dollars return home, causing hyper-inflation and economic havoc...

As the dollar crumbles and loses its control of the price of gold, the yellow metal will soar to heights heretofore unimagined. Nothing will stop it. All economic forces will aid it in its ascent... including... the world's most powerful central banks.

For then, a rising gold price will boost their collective reserves, and therefore their currencies' values, not undermine them as has been the case before the euro's advent.

Gold will be free, and the dollar will be dead: so be careful where you put your money !

The official US price above (still current) is about one-sixteenth what its gold would now fetch on the market. And as I figured late last month, even at open market prices, America's gold reserves only cover around 1.5% of the dollar money supply defined as M3.

In other words, the official price of Treasury bullion makes its total holding worth over 1,000 times less than the amount of money it has in circulation. If ever the world should divorce from the dollar standard, the results could indeed be chaotic.

Now, Iran wants yen from Japan in exchange for oil; the Chinese re-pegged the yuan in 2005 to a "basket of currencies" instead of exclusively to the dollar; the Euro has the potential to be backed by significant national holdings of gold, especially Germany's; an Islamic gold dinar is making its appearance (in Kelantan, Malaysia). I understand that Malaysia is even beginning to entertain the notion of doing away with central banks altogether and taking direct control of its own currency - a financial revolution could be brewing.

Before I get accused yet again of being a gold bug, let me say that I'm not - gold doesn't do anything much except look beautiful, same as our local stray cats. This is not about gold, but about the fiat currencies' potential for real catastrophe, on a Germany-in-1923 scale.