Gold and farmland: further points

The Daily Reckoning Australia has very stimulating thoughts today.

(1) Dan Denning quotes a friend (David Evans) on the divergence between physical gold and shares in gold mining companies:

If the price of gold rises a lot, gold shares have greater leverage and will tend to go up more than gold bars (the cost of mining the gold stays constant, but the price of the mined gold goes up). When the general public gets involved and everyone just wants gold, gold bars tend to appreciate faster... The obvious strategy is to own gold shares now, and when every man and his dog is clamouring for gold, sell your gold shares and buy gold bars to enjoy the last part of the ride.

So when I looked at gold dropping with the Dow, maybe I should have also taken a peek at what gold shares were doing at the same time. For example, Newmont Mining opened yesterday at $40.30 and closed up at $41.07, whereas gold for delivery in December fell by $2.70.

(2) Chris Mayer looks at agricultural land in Brazil and Argentina, in the light of a hungry and resource-limited China:

In Brazil and Argentina, you have one of the few places left in the world where you can acquire large tracts of land in temperate climates with plenty of rainfall to support large-scale agriculture. Already, the two countries produce about one-third of the world’s agricultural commodities. As China is the world’s workshop and India its back office, so has South America become its breadbasket.

Maybe this is why Hugh Hendry and his colleagues have just launched the Eclectica Agriculture Fund.

Gold: speculative investment vs store of value

White Star Line's "Olympic", launched 20th October 1910 (big picture)

Yet again, the Dow drops (about 2%), and gold limps after the pack (down about 0.3%). Until there's a major financial disaster, or it is returned to currency status, gold will not be able to make up its mind whether it's a quality investment or an emergency provision - a liner or a lifeboat.

Money supply, shares and property

Here's a 22 May article by Cliff d'Arcy in The Motley Fool, comparing house prices and the FTSE 100. From mid-1984 to December last year, the FTSE has outperformed by 7.4% compound per year versus 7.2% for houses. But as he points out, houses are "geared" by mortgages, whereas most of us don't borrow to buy shares.

From September 1984 to the end of 2006, the money supply as measured by M4 showed an annualised average increase of 11.64%. Looking at the growth of M4 as against that of two classes of asset, I wonder where the difference went? Do interest charges roughly account for this?

The money supply, the stockmarket, gold and land

Here's part of an interesting interview with a hedge fund manager in 2003, reproduced in October 2005:

An old interview with Hugh Hendry (2003)

Hendry: What's happening today happened 300 years ago in the French economy when John Law, another Scotsman, was allowed to launch the first government-sanctioned bank, which replaced coins with paper money. Commerce boomed. Politicians recognized this correlation between issuing more money and people liking you. They issued more and more money, but it was a false promise. Nothing intrinsically was being added to the economy except promises, which could never be redeemed. Selling by speculators caused the stock market to correct. The correction encouraged the authorities to print more funny money. Ultimately, the continued pumping of liquidity destroyed the economy, the stock market and France's currency.


More recently, the U.S. came off the gold standard in 1971 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average bottomed in 1974. Over the next 25 years, the Dow goes up 20-fold because every period of economic anxiety brought forward an orthodoxy of generous liquidity. Money has to go somewhere. It seeks to perpetuate itself by going into a rising asset class. This time, it is financial assets. Just like the Mississippi stock scheme in 1720 and the South Sea Bubble in London at the same time.

Hugh Hendry set up Eclectica Asset Management in 2005 and like others I've mentioned before, seems to have discovered an enthusiasm for agriculture; Eclectica's new Agriculture Fund is detailed here.

Elections, inflation and the stockmarket

Here's an interesting 2005 piece from British home lender / banker HBOS/Halifax, correlating periods of government with inflation and share prices. The conclusion:

Martin Ellis, chief economist at Halifax, said:

"Although wider economic conditions clearly play a part in the rise and fall of the stock market, election campaigns do appear to have a marked impact on share prices. The three month period preceding any general election traditionally sees large fluctuations in share prices as the market tries to understand the likely outcome of the election."

I haven't yet tried to relate increases in the money supply to General Elections, but it might be an interesting avenue to explore.

Buy or sell?

FT Alphaville (20 August) summarises an interim (between scheduled GBD newsletters) report by Marc Faber. The gist is that we should be looking for the right moments to sell, not to buy.

Peter Schiff: recession "necessary and inevitable"

Writing in The Market Oracle on Friday, Peter Schiff thinks it's time we took our medicine.