Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Hubble-bubble

The hubble-bubble, or hookah

The American astronomer Edwin Hubble found the evidence for an expanding universe, in the phenomenon of "red shift". Objects moving at high speed change colour, because their velocity stretches the light waves. Looking at galaxies, he saw that the further away the object, the more its spectrum shifted, so the faster it was going.

Why? Imagine you put a line of ink dots at intervals of an inch on a toy balloon, and then inflate it so that the space between each dot doubles. Dot A is now 2 inches from Dot B, and the latter is two inches from Dot C. So from A's perspective, B has receded by one inch, but C by two inches.

The implication is that as the universe continues to expand steadily, the objects furthest from us will eventually accelerate beyond the speed of light, and in Einsteinian terms will not be part of our universe any longer - we will never see anything from them again.

The financial universe is, as everyone who takes an interest knows, expanding. And everything is fine as long as the expansion continues, and while people are still prepared to use the inflating money.

One way the money supply expands is through loans. Banks only have to keep a fraction of their deposits ready for return to savers - the rest they can lend out. Some of that loaned money gets deposited into a different account - where again, part is kept and the rest loaned out. So the amount of money in the economy is multiplied by this "fractional reserve banking".

But unlike the cosmos, money can also contract. If more people than expected want their money back, loans get called in prematurely. It becomes a game of musical chairs. If there's growing concern that the system can't return all the cash demanded, two or three chairs are removed at a time and a panic starts. Rick Ackerman in GoldSeek (26 September) underscores this point.

"Captain Hook" in yesterday's Financial Sense suggests that we may be approaching such a time in the near future. The bubble may burst.

The problem for the rest of us is that if we believe the money supply will continue to expand, we want to get out of money and into anything that is more likely to hold its value; but if we anticipate deflation, then cash is king.

So, is it endless expansion, or inflation followed by a bust? Hubble, or bubble?

Backfire


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.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Round and round


"from the Chrysopoeia ('Gold Making') of Cleopatra during the Alexandrian Period in Egypt. The enclosed words mean 'The All is One.'"

Here's a piece by Brian Pretti yesterday, on the Federal Reserve and its attempts to shore up the system with interest rate cuts.

His prose is a little sparky and luxuriant, but his point is that even though the official interest rate may drop, the lending market has become more bearish and there may be higher rates (or more stringent terms) for riskier loans. He feels that lending has not previously enjoyed the discipline of a proper open market, which is why pension funds ended up buying pigs in pokes (subprime packages dressed up as a form of reasonably secure bond).

But why is so much wealth tied up in housing, anyway? I've previously suggested that lenders like to put money into houses because they rise in value, yet that rise is mainly the result of increased lending. It's what looks like an infinite loop, but there are other factors involved, that will lead to braking and possible breakdown.

Over a long period, house prices have increased:

a) because wages tend to increase faster than RPI; but in a global economy, Western wages are stalling; and in an ageing population, social costs (and therefore taxes) are rising.

b) because, sometime after WWII, we moved from a pattern of one significant income earner per couple, to two, who could bid more as DINKYs (dual income, no kids yet); but unless we learn to live as threesomes (TRINKYs) or in larger communes (FAMILIES), this driver has gone as far as it can.

c) because interest rates fell a long way, so people could service much larger mortgages; but now interest rates can't go up much, without widespread repossessions and bankruptcies - of registered voters. And whenever things get difficult, the temptation will be to drop rates further, which expands the lending and ultimately tightens the noose.

d) because lenders got rich and reckless in the boom; they might have offloaded the loans, but they may still have to pay a price for their deceits.
Meanwhile, we have diverted money into real estate that should have been powering business: R&D, startups, expanding small firms. Instead, large concerns are wiping out their potential successors: shopkeepers' children are stacking shelves for hypermarkets.
Democracy is rooted in a degree of economic independence and social equality. In effect, by permitting excessive concentration of capital, we are in danger of enslaving the next generation: the first of the "mind-forged manacles" is the limiting of their aspirations.

That sinking feeling


It is now 100 days since July 6, our starting point for measuring the Dow's fall. Against gold, the decline is substantial.
What about currency risk? According to O&A historical figures (using interbank rates), the US dollar has declined against the British pound by only 0.8%; and against the Chinese yuan, only 1.2%. But in the same period, the dollar has lost over 4% against the Euro, and 4.3% against the Japanese yen. Annualised, that's a drop of about 15% per year in yen terms. (Which currency has Warren Buffett bought this year?)

Gold? Acording to the World Gold Council (WGC), in the twelve months to 26 September, the Eurozone has sold 475.75 tonnes. (This zone includes Sweden and Switzerland; the latter has disposed of 113 tonnes out of that total, or nearly 9% of its stock. How strong is the Swiss franc? Is sound money a bad idea?)

The WGC September account reports that the US still holds 8,133.5 tonnes of gold, exactly the same amount as reported for Q1 2005, two and a half years ago. Allegedly: never forget that "credit" is Latin for "he believes it."

But maybe that's so; maybe Uncle Sam has, er, requested that other countries reduce their bullion stock in order to, um, maintain price stability. After all, the dollar has fallen 13.4% against gold already.

The competitive struggle to lose currency value continues.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Peter Schiff grows

A short, cogent, scholarly essay by Peter Schiff in Financial Sense today, explaining why a falling dollar isn't a quick exit from America's economic problems.

As well a well-wrought urn becomes
The greatest ashes, as half-acre tombs.

How would money buy this?


http://janestreetclayworks.com/2011/02/15/preview-the-history-of-bricks/1925-drawing-to-raleigh/

Many a truth is spoken in jest: at his request, Herriman's ashes were scattered in Monument Valley, Utah. Here is his love, expressed in a backhanded way that reveals more than it conceals.

This week, again, I spent time with clients talking not about money and how to invest it, but about what they wanted from life. It's so easy to let your mind become trapped in attempts to beat the top score on the pinball machine.