Thursday, August 02, 2007

Gold stocks heading for a postwar low

I've looked at the World Gold Council's long-term series from 1948 on. Current gold stocks held by governments are at a low not seen since before 1949: WGC figures for June 2007 total 30,374 tonnes (another 9 tonnes down from last December).

In 1948, official world gold reserves weighed 30,182.6 tonnes; in 1949 they were 30,623 tonnes, more than today's holdings. From then on, the hoards increased, reaching a peak in 1966 (38,283.6 tonnes). In 1967, they dropped suddenly to 36,900.9 tonnes.

Then the slow slide, taking these periods to lose around 1,000 tonnes at each stage:

1968 - 1978 (11 years): 36,000 - 37,000 tonnes
1979 - 1992 (14 years): 35,000 - 36,000 tonnes
1993 - 1996 (4 years): 34,000 - 35,000 tonnes
1997 - 2000 (4 years): 33,000 - 34,000 tonnes
2001 - 2002 (2 years): 32,000 - 33,000 tonnes
2003 - 2004 (2 years): 31,000 - 32,000 tonnes
2005 - 2006 (2 years): 30,000 - 31,000 tonnes

You'll see that the rate of loss steepened from 1993 onwards, and accelerated further from 2001. We're now approaching the lowest point since these records began, 59 years ago.

Are gold stocks a measure of world economic progression and regression?

Where's the gold gone?

Looking again at World Gold Council stats, there's something odd: a heck of a lot of gold has disappeared.

In seven years, from the first quarter of 2000 to the last quarter of 2006, the total tonnage held by countries and the IMF and World Bank has declined from 33, 375.1 to 30,383.8. That's a total reduction of nearly 9%, 2,991.3 tonnes of gold to be exact. At today's price ($21,426.87 per kilo), that's $64.09 billion gone off the radar.

Or to put it another way, at this rate of attrition, there will be no officially-held gold in the world at all in about 71 years' time, less than the lifespan of an average American.

The people must be voting in the only way that makes much difference these days, squirreling away pieces of gold. Or does anyone have a better explanation?

Bad news update; listen to Grandad

Peter Schiff has been quoted in various sources, e.g. the LA Times, as predicting oil at $100 a barrel.

Michael Panzner refers us to a site called Grandfather Economic Report, which like me is concerned about the impact of bad economics on families and the next generation.

Money and crime

The Mogambo Guru (Richard Daughty) posts a long one on The Daily Reckoning, including the text of his speech at the recent Agora Financial "Rim of Fire" conference in Vancouver. He writes and speaks like a Ranter from the English Civil War, or a Cassandra who has already dug her secret emergency escape tunnel out the back of Troy, away from the Greek lines.

But underneath the Vincent Price-like, self-parodying Gothic melodrama, I feel he's right. The answer to the question in my previous post is yes, because as money continues to be produced, of course everything will go up in nominal terms, for a time. The turning point will come when people realise that their money is going to be worth noticeably less every month, and trust in the currency will be in danger of collapse.

I also think he's right in saying that this systematic abuse suits the powerful, and their lesser friends and servants. Much of human misery is the result of people's unwillingness to do genuine work, so oarsmen will be replaced by coxes until the crew is entirely composed of steersmen and the boat stops. You do not have to be a member of the National Rifle Association to think that ever-increasing government is a problem.

Where I disagree, is the bit about looking forward to being a complacent gold bug while your neighbours suffer. Not for moral reasons, but from the practical point of view that in such a situation, your life and property would not be safe.

I remember that in the early nineties, when recession was chewing on us in the UK, one hard-working and decent small-businessman client was starting to talk, only half-jokingly, about turning to crime, just to survive. Until then, it had never occurred to me that some "stand-up guys" could be driven that way; I'd always assumed that criminals were simply a type. But I could tell he was getting serious - many a true word is spoken in jest. Fortunately for him and the rest of society, the economy improved, his house increased in value, and he sold up and emigrated to the Far East. I hope it's working out okay for him.

Back here, and in the US, I'd like to see economic reform now, not social breakdown later.

Could the Dow AND gold BOTH go up?

In unusual circumstances, normal behaviour changes, as Richard Bookstaber recently observed. If the dollar's decline continues, and gold maintains its "real" value, a 17% dollar devaluation would mean a corresponding 20.48% increase in the price of gold, carrying the yellow metal over the $800 threshold.

A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive - both finished goods and raw materials - but is a stimulus to some exports. Maybe, if it didn't all happen too suddenly and scare everyone off the market, the Dow would rise.

It would also mean paying back foreigners with cheaper money, a trick played on the world by Britain's Harold Wilson in the devaluation of 19 November 1967, when the pound's foreign exchange value was cut abruptly by 14%.

The US Treasury's figures for May 2007 show there's a total of $2.18 trillion in foreign-held securities. A Brit-style 14% devaluation would lose Uncle Sam's partners about $305 billion. John Bull's share of that loss would be some $23 billion, or around £11.5 billion.

Maybe that would finally get the British news media to notice the recent huge UK support for US government debt. I can hardly wait. Be still, my beating wallet.

There's a political price to pay, but US Presidents can't serve more than two terms anyway, not since they changed the Constitution to stop another Roosevelt reign.

Harold Wilson resigned in 1974, citing ill health, but I did once hear a rumour that the IMF, which bailed us out in 1975, had made Wilson's resignation a precondition of the loan. In these document-shredding and email-deleting times, a paranoid would say you know it's the truth when it's officially denied.

Meanwhile, please place your bets in the two polls opposite!

Good advice

An amusing e-letter from Investment U today. Its strapline is "What no books, no schools, no brokers will teach you".

With good reason, if the content is anything to go by - it seems that all you have to do for a comfortable retirement is invest in stocks that go up like rockets. And it gets better: the best way (it seems) to choose those stocks is to look at how they've done in the past.

The figures are great, too. To create $100k per year in 10 years' time, they say you'll need a fund of $2 million. Apparently there's no such thing as inflation. Because if there is, and it rolls on at a sedate 2.5% compound per year, you'll need 28% more in 10 years' time.

In actuality, assuming you want your retirement income to be inflation-proofed, your fund will have to be not 20 times the planned income you want, but closer to 40. Partly it's because we're living longer (and retiring earlier), but mostly it's because the life insurance companies have cottoned on to the fact that our governments are (a) losing control of our finances and (b) lying heroically to us about it.

So maybe we're aiming at a fund of $5 million.

The rate of return shown is wild - a mere 29.6% per year. One would have to be "in denial" to postulate a steady 30% a year in America's train-wreck economy, when the great Warren Buffett has been sitting on billions in cash for years and has recently started to hedge against the dollar. Doug Casey has something that he says is "going to the moon", but that's gold - a speculation if ever there was one.

Here in the heavily-regulated UK, the maximum pension growth that can legally be illustrated is 9%, but that's including fund management charges. "Stakeholder" pensions have a maximum annual charge of 1%. So let's assume an (optimistic) annual growth rate of 8%.

Using our revised end-point, our legally-restricted growth rate and working backwards, as in the example provided, we need to start with a lump sum of $2,315,967. Not $194,400.

The article does make some serious points:
  • baby boomers are facing a retirement crisis (Richard Bookstaber mentioned that in his interview with Jim Puplava, and thinks it'll be one of the drag factors on investments for many years to come)
  • longer-term investments can afford to be riskier than short-term investments
  • in the long run, we normally expect equities to outperform bonds
  • investing earlier reduces the required rate of return to achieve your end-point target, so start early
But please, don't think that returns over the last 5 years are anything to rely on. "The Legg Mason Opportunity Trust (LMOPX), for example, has a 5-year annual return of 20.74%," say these not-your-brokers. The Dow itself has risen 60% since August 2002, but you have to remember where we were then. So Legg Mason's fund has returned an average 10.7% p.a. above the Dow.

How did it do that? Much depends on the type of fund you're in - a fund whose name includes the word "recovery" or "opportunity" is usually one that concentrates on smaller companies, the shy, creeping things that are the first to emerge from the undergrowth after the storm. These are also damaged more easily than the big beasts by economic downturns. So the real lesson is, be in the right type of asset at the right time. Getting into a recovery fund in '02-'04 was a good choice, then.

And how about highlighted stocks? "Starbucks, Franklin Resources, General Dynamics, Amazon, Citigroup… These companies have posted average returns in excess of 30% a year, for more than a decade."

...I'm now reading Benjamin Graham, the man who taught Warren Buffett, and a note to the latest edition points out that in 2000 and 2001, Amazon. com lost 85.8%. If you'd been one of the victims and had to re-start with 14.2 cents for every dollar you had originally, you'd have to post a 704% gain just to get back where you started (and even then, you'd still be behind inflation, and interest earned safely on deposits). The first principle of investing is not to lose your money.

If you're going to risk a fortune on individual stocks, maybe you should blow your wad at the track instead - it'll be more fun. A nice day out, a bit of champagne, and you can sell your binoculars for the fare home.

There's an adage in law: "Free advice is worth what you pay for it". If you want advice, seek out a broker and pay for it. The poor sap is then liable for all your losses, while any gains are down to your wisdom in picking him.

Seriously, though, read financial newsletters with caution, and read the disclaimers first.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Poll: how would you hedge against a dollar fall?

...and for extra marks (especially if you're putting your money on it!), let's see what currency or precious metal looks like the best store of the value of your dollars.

Warren Buffett recently revealed he's hedged against the greenback, and gold and silver bugs are contesting the merits of their respective hoards. If your preference is for currency but you wonder about the backing, remember that Germany has the world's second-largest stock of gold, whereas Switzerland and the UK have been persuaded to get rid of about half their gold holdings since 2000.

Meanwhile, Japan and China are both struggling to hold their currencies down, to protect their export markets. Russia seems keen on claiming half the Polar region and is already able to use its energy supplies as an economic weapon. India is developing fast, and may turn out to be an interesting rival for China.

Here's our starting point today, using the figures from the Currency Converter widget on the sidebar. $1,000 will currently buy:

729.74 Euros
1,427.25 German Marks (there's a glitch in the currency converter, so I've done this in two stages)
119,080 Japanese Yen
7,581.23 Chinese Yuan or Renminbi
492.40 British Pounds
40,383 Indian Rupees
25,548.20 Russian Roubles
1,203.70 Swiss Francs

An ounce of gold costs $665.03
An ounce of silver costs $12.92

Where would you hold your savings until the New Year?