PDA

View Full Version : Shayne McGuire: The Early Innings of a Gold Boom


FRED
02-27-08, 10:27 AM
http://www.itulip.com/images/batgold.jpgShayne McGuire: The Early Innings of a Gold Boom

by John Rubino, dollarcollapse.com (http://www.dollarcollapse.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=64)

Editor's Note: The gold market our readers entered in 2001 was like the abandoned sports stadium of a baseball team – team Gold – that had seen better days. The field was overgrown, the bench paint peeled, and the bleachers empty but for a few hearty fans, the loyal gold bugs who'd come to every game for 20 years only to see team Gold lose every year. They hoped and prayed for team Gold's former glory to return. They never lost faith.

Then, in 2001, gradually team Gold started to win again. At first the victories were modest but soon team Gold handed defeat to team Stocks year after year, pummeling Stocks in 2002 and 2003 and every year since 2004. Look at the scoreboard below.

No wonder mainstream money managers are getting on board. Who doesn't want to be on the side of a winning team? But it raises the obvious questions: How many more fans can the Gold stadium hold? Does the growing popularity of team Gold mean its fortunes are reaching a peak as it scores every higher, in nominal terms, above its previous record?

Long time iTulip readers who recall our original argument for buying gold in 2001 (See Questioning Fashionable Financial Advice: Gold - September 2001 (http://www.itulip.com/gold.htm)) will recognize the arguments McGuire makes here. We have interviewed a half dozen hedge fund managers for a piece we're working on called "Doomer Hedgies" wherein managers who run huge funds lay out ominous forecasts for the future of the US economy and its currency. They are piling into gold.

http://www.itulip.com/images/GOLDvsDOW.gif


As contrarians we like our markets nearly empty with lots of room to grow as the gold market was when we entered. Gold prices have nearly quadrupled since our 2001 analysis. Gold prices may double and triple from here but it's a different kind of growth. It's the easy growth of a winning team with heaps of money and marketing behind it versus the hard earned wins of the underdog struggling against the popular and well funded competitor. Can those of us who entered in 2001 make the emotional shift? Can we welcome all the new team Gold fans with open arms?

I say, Welcome new team Gold fans. Bring your checkbooks and keep your eyes open for the next of Paul Volcker. - Eric Janszen

Shayne McGuire: The Early Innings of a Gold Boom

My new friend Shayne McGuire is director of global research at Texas’ $115 billion Teacher Retirement System, which means he oversees a vast portfolio of high-grade bonds, Blue Chip stocks, and cash. Not the kind of environment that’s usually hospitable to atavistic assets like gold. Yet he recently published a book—a very good book—titled “Buy Gold Now”, in which he explains his belief that the dollar, U.S. bonds and many stocks are headed south, while gold is going to the moon. Here he is on why this will happen and how best to play it:

DollarCollapse: You're a rarity: A mainstream money manager recommending gold, an asset that usually does well when bonds, your pension fund's mainstay, do badly. Why?

Shayne McGuire: On the surface, gold makes sense in today’s environment. Gold does well when both bonds and stocks are doing badly, when there is insufficient compensation for the risks inherent in owning either asset class. In the 1970s, gold did very well in part because the stock and bond arenas were mine fields. Investors found that pulling money out of financial assets made sense. Simple as it sounds, the concern was with staying away from things that were going down, and this collective concern pushed gold up as more investors bought it, as is occurring today.

Gold fared poorly during the 1980s and 90s in part because there were high yields in the bond market, which rewarded investors moving into that arena during periods of stock market turbulence. But today, a 10-year Treasury bond pays investors less than a 4% yield, a level below inflation, which is beginning to rise again. Who wants a negative return? On the other hand, the stock market’s volatility has doubled in the last year and returns are negative. Now that a recession is on the horizon, gold makes more sense to more people each day and the market is tiny: a small amount of interest is making gold and other precious metals surge in value.

At a deeper level, there are a great many other reasons why gold continues to rise and why I believe we are in the early innings of a gold boom. The dollar, about which we could talk for hours, continues to plunge and there is a multiplicity of reasons why the greenback should stay weak, most notably the monstrous size of our national debt (government and private). The derivatives market, which was negligible 20 years ago, just passed the half quadrillion mark in size, and we know—based on the questionable record of banks’ risk management systems—that this is something to be concerned about. (LTCM, a single hedge fund which had two Nobel prize-winning PhDs helping call the investment shots, nearly brought the global financial system to its knees a decade ago. But back then the hedge fund industry was half the size of today’s, and the derivatives market is more than six times the size then, and several times larger than world GDP. )

Furthermore, there are strains on supply, as the mining industry struggles to increase production, and there are signs that central banks may begin to slow down their sales of gold after decades of dumping. Clearly, to this last point, there has not been a free market in gold. Perhaps we will soon discover gold’s real value, and I think it’s not cheap. Clearly, central banks have impeded a truly free market in gold. In the years ahead we will discover gold’s true value, and I think it’s several thousand dollars higher than what we see today.

I think it makes sense to believe that more and more investors will come to appreciate the value of something tangible that you can hold in your hand, a store of wealth that had been unchallenged for thousands of years until the last 30 or so.

DC: How have your colleagues responded to your coming out for gold?

SM: Judging by their interest in my book, I am surprised at how well many have responded. This was unexpected. Any MBA holder, who has been taught to value almost any asset, hits a stone wall when faced with gold: it pays no dividend or coupon, and without deriving a cash flow, the basis of most assets defined as being financial, there is no conventional way to determine its dollar value. Ultimately, it’s just a rock, right? I wrote my book with this question in mind: how can I convince friends with MBAs, who have never thought seriously about owning gold (and often mock its owners, like me!), that a polished rock could climb in value into the thousands of dollars? I was encouraged to learn that several of my colleagues, who eat, sleep and dream about finance, have decided to buy gold.

DC: Are the problems that have made gold such a good thing to own fixable, or will we have to go through a currency crisis followed by an economic collapse?

SM: I have no crystal ball, so I can only talk about what makes sense to me. The credit explosion (the way up the hill) could only have occurred if there had been credibility in the U.S. dollar, which is ultimately backed by the strength of the mammoth U.S. economy. A smaller economy never would have been able to accumulate debt equivalent to more than 300% of its GDP, as we have today; its currency would have collapsed, as has happened dozens of times in emerging markets in just the last twenty years.

For decades, up until very recently, concerns about the dollar were ultimately silenced by the verdict of the market: collectively, the investment world felt that the dollar could not fall—despite ever-climbing deficits—because it is the world’s currency: all of the powers that be—central and private banks and all governments—would ensure its safety. Japan, Europe, and the newly strengthened emerging markets have accumulated dollars to prevent its collapse and there is a collective sense that they will continue to do so. But now that the value of U.S. assets is in clear decline and the U.S. economy is decelerating more rapidly than any economy I can think of, the credit bubble has been punctured severely.

In 1933, President Roosevelt told the nation that national assets had fallen below the level of national debts in value after the 1920s credit bubble exploded. Today our assets (at least on paper) are worth substantially more than what we owe, but I know that quite a few people noticed in 2006 when a St. Louis Fed paper asked the stunning question Is the United States Bankrupt? (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1165#post1165) Many of the Great Depression’s problems were exacerbated by the dollar’s strength: FDR was not able to weaken it even as he tried! Today, we have the inverse situation: all of the world’s major central banks are accumulating dollar reserves in a frantic effort to keep the dollar from collapsing.

I have lived through two currency collapses (in Mexico) and I hope we will be able to prevent one. But the outlook is not good. Currency collapses are always caused by excessive debt, and no nation has ever accumulated more than we have. Our debt is larger than global GDP, and that is without including the tens of billions in unfunded federal liabilities.

DC: How will we know when the dollar has bottomed and gold peaked?

SM: That is a very tough question because we have never faced a scenario like today’s. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volker smothered the gold rally in 1980 with double-digit interest rates that compensated investors for holding bonds during inflationary times. Today, the Fed stands ready to print money and keep interest rates in the low single digits and is ignoring inflation, at least for now, as they deal with the credit crisis.

I think gold will have peaked when the rewards offered for holding traditional assets are sufficient to compensate us for surging risks. If we consider that gold peaked when an ounce of the precious metal was near the value of the Dow Industrials index, then perhaps gold needs to rise at least ten-fold or the Dow needs to fall quite a bit.

Gold is the most underowned major asset class; it is almost completely absent from the vast majority of major funds in the world that exceed $100 million in value, of which there are hundreds if not thousands. Today, these funds can invest in gold with the click of a mouse and a great many of them are beginning to do so. The global asset market is worth around $140 trillion. If one percent of that moved into the miniscule $5 trillion gold market—less than 5% of which actually trades each year—gold’s value would skyrocket. Lacking a P/E or some other conventional investment metric with which to measure its value, I think gold will rise as high as the market will allow it, and I think we will have a speculative craze, just as we had with the Nasdaq. I think $10,000 an ounce is possible. But who can say what the limit is for an asset that has no P/E? Obviously, there will be a time to sell, but I think that is years in the future.

DC: In the meantime, what kinds of gold should people be buying?

SM: I think, as has happened many times before in human history, people will once again become increasingly concerned about the value of paper assets—receipts representing some questionable value—and will look toward physical gold and the rare coins market, in particular. I think the rare coin market could outperform the bullion market in the years to come and I tried to make an argument for this in my book. I prefer physical gold over ETFs and my three favorite coins are Buffalo one-ounce gold coins, pre-1933 Liberty gold coins, and—if you’ll allow me to throw in silver—Morgan silver dollars.

DC: Okay, speaking of silver, how does it fit into your framework?

SM: I personally like silver a lot, but it is a more speculative investment. If you want to bet on a dollar crash, this is a good way to do it. But caveat emptor. During the summer of 2006, silver fell around ten percent in a single day, a very painful thing to watch. Gold is far more stable: on a very bad day, it could fall three percent.

There are more industrial uses for silver, which makes the metal vulnerable in a recession. However, silver is used up in industrial production, meaning that each day there is less silver around, while virtually all the gold that has been mined and refined in world history is with us today.

Although China still has stockpiles of silver that it uses to control prices to some degree, the U.S. Treasury finally has sold off the remainder of the enormous stockpile it has accumulated in the 1930s. Today it holds zero. Hence, central banks cannot interfere in the silver market the way they do in the gold market. This is why I think silver has been so strong of late: hedge funds and other investors have realized that, say, a sudden announcement that the IMF is dumping silver could never happen, as just occurred with gold.

DC: Will we ever use gold as money again?

SM: Only if the dollar collapses and takes the Euro down with it.

(Photo credit: Baseball Player Swinging a Bat (http://joyangel123.blogspot.com/2007/11/ive-bought-big-bat.html))

iTulip Select (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1032): The Investment Thesis for the Next Cycle™
__________________________________________________
For the safest, lowest cost way to buy and trade gold, see The Bullionvault (http://www.bullionvault.com/from/itulip)

To receive the iTulip Newsletter or iTulip Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List (http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?m=1101238839116&p=oi)

Copyright © iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2007 All Rights Reserved

All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer (http://www.itulip.com/GeneralDisclaimer.htm)

akrowne
02-27-08, 03:52 PM
Glad silver was given some coverage too.

The risk of 10% down days is certainly higher (though we may never see this happen again), but there is also the risk of 10% upside, just like we had in the last (2-day) period. It's a good time to own gold, and a really good time to own silver!

The white metal is sniffing at $20 now. Spectacular performance, really.

Ted Butler has done extensive, long-running work on documenting the massive concentrated short position, as well. The paper shorts are bigger than they ever have been, which means despite the great performance, the price is still depressed.

Lukester
02-27-08, 05:56 PM
Aaron -

This is a question I've been meaning to ask around here for a good long while. I've been reading Ted Butler for years, and recently came across the writing of Tom Szabo (Silveraxis) who is 'mentored' by Prof. Antal Fekete of the Univ. of Newfoundland.

I'm in far over my head reading their stuff and trying to get a handle on it. However as I'm a big silver fan and own probably more of the stuff than is good for me, I've been reading everything I can get my hands on regarding silver.

Tom Szabo and Prof. Fekete are the "Anti-Ted-Butler's", and I don't have a grip on how much merit there is in their arguments, but my instinct is that they are pointing out some serious questions that need to be posed on Ted Butler's views.

Basically Szabo and Fekete are saying it's nonsense to presume such massive short positions in silver can be 'naked', because the risk in such shorting long ago would have prompted naked shorts to seek multiple opportunities to exit this high risk gambit.

Instead, these two (and Fekete apparently has a fairly good reputation as a student of currencies) are saying that a very large part of these presumed 'naked shorts' are instead owners of a very large stock of silver, who are 'renting' out short positions to derive an income on the bullion they own.

I look at the size of the short position in silver and ask myself - whoever is overseeing such large positions has to be at least moderately smart money. The number one mistake we can make, in my view as investors, is to underestimate the intelligence of our counterparties in the market (except central bankers, who are apparently born slow-witted on the really major conceptual issues).

So Szabo and Fekete are saying the risk in such massive 'naked' short positions vastly outweighs any other factor. First of all, it would appear that only government money has pockets deep enough to absorb the kind of losses which such a gargantuan short position poses should the market run away on the upside. Then stop to consider that for two, three, four or five years the smart money has 'always known' that eventually in this inflationary environment silver would indeed run away on the upside.

It's my view after reading Fekete's critiques of why Ted Butler is all wet on this topic, that Ted Butler, no matter how brilliant he is, is committing the cardinal sin of interpreting the markets in a conspiracist viewpoint, and he's making a big mistake.

The gargantuan size of the short positions, and the fact they are doubling down, rather than exiting their shorts in this market, strongly hints that these shorts are not reacting with fear to a surging silver price. Why? One very good reason could be that the silver shorts are fully backed by large stores of silver that's been quietly accumulated for decades.

China perhaps?

Szabo and Fekete while taking a very different viewpoint from Ted Butler, also concur the former monetary metals have some serious upside ahead of them, and that there will be a 'run on the monetary metals' at some point during the upcoming monetary transition. They don't deny Ted Butler's final thesis, but they do deny his entire theory of naked shorts has basis in reality. I am fascinated with Butler's writing, but I have recently begun to feel some real skepticism about his entire thesis, because it's elaborately constructed around a massive conspiracist collusion, and that 'conspiracy' stuff just does not make any business sense to me. There is such a thing as 'risk/reward' and this gargantuan naked short position so thoroughly distorts it's parameters as to appear fantastic.

BiscayneSunrise
02-27-08, 07:07 PM
Any reason why he liked pre 1993 Liberty coins? A local coin dealer tells me there is no difference, pre and post 1993.

Lukester
02-27-08, 07:30 PM
Biscayne - seems that was maybe a typo. What could have been intended was 'pre-1933' which refers basically to all the semi-numismatic coins. FWIW, I think semi-numismatics is a wacky investment area. I owned a bunch and dumped them a couple of years later and have never been tempted to buy that stuff again. If one can make 300% - 800% holding plain bullion in a decade, why mess around with that 'semi-numismatic' stuff in an attempt to squeeze an extra couple of hundred percent out of one's investment? There is no guarantee you'll get the added return - and the 'semi-numismatic' coins might also continually lag the metal price run-up, via continually shrinking premiums, just as they've been doing this past couple of years. Looks like a dodgy investment to me, regardless of how stellar they were supposed to be in the 1970's.

metalman
02-27-08, 07:40 PM
Any reason why he liked pre 1993 Liberty coins? A local coin dealer tells me there is no difference, pre and post 1993.

makes no sense to me. i bought libs...

http://www.amergold.com/vault/images/1893p20ln64030206o.jpg

for years because the spread over bullion was like $20 so why not?

why not buy that instead of...

http://www.usagold.com/gold/coins/pics/gold-bullion-eagle.jpeg

why not? choose the rare olde ms60 gold over the walmart mint version for a $20 spread?

how about now? spread is $260 (http://www.pcgs.com/prices/PriceGuideDetail.aspx?c=66)

shit. should have bought more! the worse news? this means our economy is fucked... rich people are buying gold. that should send shivers down the spine of j6p. the rich are abandoning the ship they built.

fyi

Lukester
02-27-08, 07:48 PM
I'm really hoping someone here can decode whether the large short positions in gold and silver really are naked, or whether there's any possibility they are in large part 'covered'. I've not found any answer to this anywhere. Ted Butler just keeps making assertions about it, but the logic does not necessarily seem ironclad. 'a massive position of trapped shorts'.

Is that notion real??

metalman
02-27-08, 07:51 PM
I'm really hoping someone here can decode whether the large short positions in gold and silver really are naked, or whether there's any possibility they are in large part 'covered'. I've not found any answer to this anywhere. Ted Butler just keeps making assertions about it, but the logic does not necessarily seem ironclad. 'a massive position of trapped shorts'.

Is that notion real??

you are naive. the truth of any market is never debated in public on web sites. if it were the money'd be gone before the bits hit the ether. your money.

Lukester
02-27-08, 08:12 PM
Aaaahhhhhh. So!

jtabeb
02-27-08, 08:59 PM
Aaron -

However as I'm a big silver fan and own probably more of the stuff than is good for me, I've been reading everything I can get my hands on regarding silver.



Could you quantify that in whatever terms you are comfortable with revealing?

I am really giddy at finding someone more lopsided on silver than myself ;)

P.S. How Big a position would you need to to sell covered shorts? How would you make money (the price keeps going up)? IF the short goes wrong way (price goes up instead of down), don't you loose your silver that you covered with?

Seriously, just trying to understand how it works.

Lukester
02-27-08, 10:10 PM
jtabeb -

I understand it no better than you. That's why I posted the question here. Actually I was hoping Aaron Krowne would take a crack at it, as he's a lot savvier on markets than I am. Or maybe Bart, or ferchrissakes - SOMEBODY with a rational explanation. The question gnaws at me and bugs me no end. Butler's explanation alone seems flat-out irrational.

Ask yourself - why on earth, would five or six large players single-handedly short 200 days worth of global silver production in a seven year bull market that's heating up? Why would they grossly pile on further short positions? Market participants play dangerous games for a big payoff. If there IS NO big payoff (as you note, silver keeps rising and shorts keep getting killed), who could have pockets deep enough to merely shrug off the potential losses when the lid really blew off this thing? What would be their other motive, if neither profit or loss were important to them?

What, is this supposed to be a 'PREMIUM TOPIC' which is reserved (permitted) only for iTulip Select subscribers? What tripe. Is that what the Metal Guy is so haughtily suggesting below? I see a 'Silver > China' topic listed on the iTulip home page, reserved for Select Members. Ahhh! Must be some really arcane discussion going on there, eh? Suitable for the initiated Jesuits only perhaps? :rolleyes:

The potential losses on this size of short position in the Silver market are very-large-cap company-busting quantities of money. Where is the logic of this massive collusive short? Silver is NOT a monetary metal (yet). Banks are NOT interested in controlling the silver market like they are in controlling the price of gold. The silver market is too damn small!

I look in all directions, and the logic as to why a few massively exposed shorts would be hanging tough in this environment, without having ownership of any of the silver they are shorting - the entire thesis seems bereft of any discernible logic. A theory that apparently dispenses with logic bears some scrutiny, no?

What is the advantage for these shorts? Central Banks don't care a hoot for the price of silver. They are only interested in capping the price of Gold! So if it's not Central Banks doing this shorting, who else out there has a burning desire to get utterly bankrupted carrying out such massive naked short positions as Silver is manifestly breaking out of a 25 year cap below $15.00?

Can someone point it out to me what logic here is escaping me (without sounding like a Jesuit Priest)?

chrisk
02-27-08, 11:13 PM
I'm really hoping someone here can decode whether the large short positions in gold and silver really are naked, or whether there's any possibility they are in large part 'covered'. I've not found any answer to this anywhere. Ted Butler just keeps making assertions about it, but the logic does not necessarily seem ironclad. 'a massive position of trapped shorts'.

Is that notion real??

I have no inside info, but I've never understood why the silver short positions couldn't be backed by producer silver. We know producers commonly hedge future production, often years into the future. And what is yearly total production, on the order of a billion ounces? It's huge, in any case. I don't see why these hedges couldn't be mostly done through a small group of large banks, resulting in the so-called "concentrated short position".

Of course if this were true, there still might be the makings of a serious short-term delivery crisis, if for example the futures contract dates didn't perfectly match up with the producers' actual production dates (e.g. a miner might use near-term contracts to hedge further-out production).

I vaguely remember arguing with Butler about this somewhere once, which was a waste of time. He has his story and he's sticking to it. He may be right for all I know, but he didn't seem interested in discussing any plausible alternatives, IMO.

zoog
02-28-08, 12:02 AM
I don't understand this stuff either, but it reminds me of this thread (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1928) a while back when the internet was all ablaze with talk about someone making a $4.5 gazillion-dollar options bet on the stock market crashing. C1ue tried to explain that somehow it was just a convoluted short-term loan.:confused:

chrisk's post about maybe this is just collective hedging by silver producers sounds plausible to me. At least more believable than someone eating a massive short position.

...I see a 'Silver > China' topic listed on the iTulip home page, reserved for Select Members. Ahhh! Must be some really arcane discussion going on there, eh? Suitable for the initiated Jesuits only perhaps? :rolleyes:

As for that thread, don't worry, you aren't missing much. Someone posted a clip from the Jim Willie Hat Trick Report, some (IMO) wild conspiracy theory that China is going to corner the entire world silver market and then demand everyone pay for Chinese goods in silver.

Chris
02-28-08, 12:34 AM
The bullion has been discussed here frequently, but I ask, what about the stocks?

Puplava raves about owing junior minors, and mid-size producers, etc (and his portfolio certainly shows that he does own a lot) but i've never heard a satisfactory explaination as to why these stocks are performing so poorly. Surely CB price manipulation can't be the whole story? Or can it?

Is it just that we are still early in the gold boom? Surely it must be profitable now that gold futures are over $900 for an unhedged producer to be operating at profit? If not, why not?

Jim talks a lot about the large short positions in some of these stocks but there can't be large shorts on all of them? I'm not savvy enough to know how to find that sort of information out.

I really hope someone can enlighten me. Metalman?

BiscayneSunrise
02-28-08, 04:34 AM
So at at $260 spread, do you still like the older coins?

GRG55
02-28-08, 07:27 AM
The bullion has been discussed here frequently, but I ask, what about the stocks?

Puplava raves about owing junior minors, and mid-size producers, etc (and his portfolio certainly shows that he does own a lot) but i've never heard a satisfactory explaination as to why these stocks are performing so poorly. Surely CB price manipulation can't be the whole story? Or can it?

Is it just that we are still early in the gold boom? Surely it must be profitable now that gold futures are over $900 for an unhedged producer to be operating at profit? If not, why not?

Jim talks a lot about the large short positions in some of these stocks but there can't be large shorts on all of them? I'm not savvy enough to know how to find that sort of information out.

I really hope someone can enlighten me. Metalman?

The pattern is consistent with commodity producers vs the commodity. First the large cap producers move with the commodity, then the intermediates and finally the juniors. Have a look at the price behaviour of base metal companies like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which have had good runs, compared with the junior base metal explorer/producers and you'll see the same pattern as with the precious metals.

If fund managers like McGuire are now playing gold they could be hedging their net equity market exposure by going long the seniors like Barrick, Agnico and Goldcorp (and maybe even long-unloved Newmont now) early in this run, against shorts of the juniors. This might be exaggerating the junior mining stock/bullion spread.

bart
02-28-08, 09:00 AM
I understand it no better than you. That's why I posted the question here. Actually I was hoping Aaron Krowne would take a crack at it, as he's a lot savvier on markets than I am. Or maybe Bart, or ferchrissakes - SOMEBODY with a rational explanation. The question gnaws at me and bugs me no end. Butler's explanation alone seems flat-out irrational.



One of the problems with the general area is that overall, it is indeed not rational or "logical".

A few years ago when I first started to explore it and try to make sense out of it, I thought that GATA and Butler and others really were in the tinfoil hat brigade (disclosure: I am not a member of GATA).

But the more I looked and did my own due diligence, the more I found more than a few kernels of truth. There is actual evidence of control or manipulation or whatever you want to call it... and it was *far* from easy to deal with on a personal basis, and is still disturbing... and my own cynicism level needed to be adjusted.
On the whole, it's very much *not* a smoke filled back room conspiracy situation... but actual evidence and facts are there.

All I can really do is suggest you continue with your own due diligence, and make up your own mind in that way.... and above all, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The existence (or not) of manipulation is a sideshow in this bull market.

Lukester
02-28-08, 10:22 AM
Jtabeb, Chrisk, Zoog, Chris, GRG55, Bart - thanks for your input. I hope some others will put in their own views here. This is a not inconsiderable issue to decode, for any of us who own silver. If many people chip in their related insights it may be that some further clarity is obtained. The topic is extremely murky.

We should maybe dedicate this all to C1ue, who has lugubriously been hauling a 100 Oz "silver barbell" around with him for well over a decade, with long suffering but cynical resignation, as though it were a "dead weight"??

Aologies to Metalman, for my having rashly suggested he is "as secretive as a Jesuit" (I would note rather, that given his quite "brusque" dismissal of religious proselytizers, [as in poundng sense into creationist's heads with a brick until they cry "UNCLE!"], and his further tendency to profane language, the Jesuits would likely be totally horrified to have to accept him into their ranks!). :D

Metal guy, you are one of iTulip's most caustic and eternally crusty contributors, and I for one think you lend a unique flavor to the posts on these pages. You can dole out some pretty caustic comments yourself, so please take my occasional one with a shrug. Don't turn your back on me, guy! :o

Jim Nickerson
02-28-08, 10:34 AM
Chrisk, Zoog, Chris, GRG55, Bart - thanks for your input. I hope some others will put in their own views here. This is a not inconsiderable issue to decode, for any of us who own silver. If many people chip in their related insights it may be that some further clarity is obtained. The topic is extremely murky.

We should maybe dedicate this all to C1ue, who has lugubriously been hauling a 100 Oz "silver barbell" around with him for well over a decade, with long suffering but cynical resignation, as though it were a "dead weight"??

Aologies to Metalman, for my having rashly suggested he is "as secretive as a Jesuit" (I would note rather, that given his quite "brusque" dismissal of religious proselytizers, [as in poundng sense into creationist's heads with a brick until they cry "UNCLE!"], and his further tendency to profane language, the Jesuits would likely be totally horrified to have to accept him into their ranks!). :D

Metal guy, you are one of iTulip's most caustic and eternally crusty contributors, and I for one think you lend a unique flavor to the posts on these pages. You can dole out some pretty caustic comments yourself, so please take my occasional one with a shrug. Don't turn your back on me, guy! :o

Just watch the chart and be done with it.

touchring
02-28-08, 11:10 AM
btw, silver has gone crazy the past 3 weeks, keeps shooting up even while gold fluctuates around the same point. :D

stumann
02-28-08, 07:23 PM
"a store of wealth that had been unchallenged for thousands of years until the last 30 or so"
---
gold is not a store of wealth - information, skills and education are "stored wealth" but not a commodity. commodities get their value from markets, and all markets, in the end, are manipulated.
---
"... A smaller economy never would have been able to accumulate debt equivalent to more than 300% of its GDP, as we have today; its currency would have collapsed, as has happened dozens of times in emerging markets in just the last twenty years"
---
read economic texts from the American Civil War era. you'll see the use of terms like "bank money" and "silver money" and "gold money". there's NO WAY a modern economy could function using gold/silver - its like saying Europe could return to rule by aristocracy, yet still remain "modern".
---
DC: Will we ever use gold as money again?

SM: Only if the dollar collapses and takes the Euro down with it
---
if the dollar collapses, the gold market collapses too. duh. the most valuable asset will be a shotgun.

I still believe gold/silver are in the final blow off stage of Greenspan's debt bubble. they'll crash alongside houses, and soon the DOW.

AGAIN, remember that a Wiemar-style currency collapse can only happen when the wealthy flee a country for another currency - so unless all the big money Americans suddenly think China or Russia or South America is a safer place to put their assets, the American Dollar can not collapse. that's just not gunna happen.

and for those who think all that wealth is going to pile into commodities...

touchring
02-28-08, 08:11 PM
I still believe gold/silver are in the final blow off stage of Greenspan's debt bubble. they'll crash alongside houses, and soon the DOW.

AGAIN, remember that a Wiemar-style currency collapse can only happen when the wealthy flee a country for another currency - so unless all the big money Americans suddenly think China or Russia or South America is a safer place to put their assets, the American Dollar can not collapse. that's just not gunna happen.

and for those who think all that wealth is going to pile into commodities...


Question:
The mortgage brokers and bond bankers with all their ill-gotten wealth, how are they gona hide the money when the crackdown comes???

If they decide to hide their wealth underground, there wouldn't be enough gold, platinum or diamonds to go around.

Lukester
02-28-08, 08:15 PM
Stumann -

What asset class do you regard as a safe-haven in this scenario? Where do you plan to seek shelter?

... if the dollar collapses, the gold market collapses too. duh ... gold/silver are in the final blow off stage of Greenspan's debt bubble. they'll crash alongside houses, and soon the DOW. ... and for those who think all that wealth is going to pile into commodities...

metalman
02-28-08, 10:03 PM
[QUOTE]Stumann
... if the dollar collapses, the gold market collapses too. duh

right.

http://blogs.reuters.com/commodity-corner/files/2007/10/gold_dollar_new.gif

sadsack
02-28-08, 10:10 PM
Question:
The mortgage brokers and bond bankers with all their ill-gotten wealth, how are they gona hide the money when the crackdown comes???

If they decide to hide their wealth underground, there wouldn't be enough gold, platinum or diamonds to go around.

Not only potentiallly insightful, but the last stanza rhymes . . . :D

Chris
02-29-08, 01:29 AM
The pattern is consistent with commodity producers vs the commodity. First the large cap producers move with the commodity, then the intermediates and finally the juniors. Have a look at the price behaviour of base metal companies like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which have had good runs, compared with the junior base metal explorer/producers and you'll see the same pattern as with the precious metals.

If fund managers like McGuire are now playing gold they could be hedging their net equity market exposure by going long the seniors like Barrick, Agnico and Goldcorp (and maybe even long-unloved Newmont now) early in this run, against shorts of the juniors. This might be exaggerating the junior mining stock/bullion spread.

Barrick's are a poor choice IMO, given there massive hedged positions.

When you say it's early in this run, over what time frame do you expect to see a shift in interest from the majors to the juniors? Roughly, given the historical trend.

touchring
02-29-08, 02:59 AM
I only see gold collapsing the opposite direction (upwards) as the dollar collapses (downwards). :confused:


[quote=Lukester;28844]


right.

http://blogs.reuters.com/commodity-corner/files/2007/10/gold_dollar_new.gif

Lukester
02-29-08, 11:55 AM
Touchring -

The chart shows an inverse relationship between dollar and gold. Stumann's observation above seems a bit difficult to comprehend according to the existing data. Metalman was maybe joking. Stumann's interpretation (dollar collapse = inevitable gold collapse) does not therefore seem (by any means) inevitable, at least if you go by what the above chart suggests.

Nicolasd
03-03-08, 06:53 PM
The bullion has been discussed here frequently, but I ask, what about the stocks?

Puplava raves about owing junior minors, and mid-size producers, etc (and his portfolio certainly shows that he does own a lot) but i've never heard a satisfactory explaination as to why these stocks are performing so poorly. Surely CB price manipulation can't be the whole story? Or can it?

Is it just that we are still early in the gold boom? Surely it must be profitable now that gold futures are over $900 for an unhedged producer to be operating at profit? If not, why not?

Jim talks a lot about the large short positions in some of these stocks but there can't be large shorts on all of them? I'm not savvy enough to know how to find that sort of information out.

I really hope someone can enlighten me. Metalman?


Chris,

I loosely reviewed the Junior situation recently and one of my conclusion is that Juniors are facing increasing costs (energy, labor, environemental regulation/reporting, projects overuns and start-up delays, etc) not to mention the inability to finance new projects or projects costs overruns in todays credit dis-functional environement .This in turn makes the relationship between the stock price appreciation and the commodity prices appreciation at less than a 1:1 ratio.

If I were to add more Juniors mining cie in my portfolio , I would add only those that are already in production and leave the ones at project stage on the back burner for now.

Hope this helps.

c1ue
03-04-08, 11:52 AM
The problem with gold is that it is no different than fashion.

One day, it is fashionable to wear disco pants. Then for 3 decades, it ain't.

You can't eat gold, gold doesn't multiply itself, gold doesn't directly fuel your car or fix your house.

Much like a pair of disco pants or a tulip bulb, gold is worth what the consensus believes it is worth.

At present there is a growing consensus that gold is the best investment, that it must grow in value due to dollar depreciation and/or inflation and/or peak oil.

This may in fact be true, but equally may be a symptom of a subset of the population seeking a safe haven - and that when either a better safe haven returns or the depreciation/inflation/peak oil goes away, gold subsides again as investment demand drops back to normal levels.

The point I am again stressing is that should you invest in gold, be clear on why and what your exit strategy is.

Think 3 steps down the road, or all you are accomplishing is a relative lessening of losses as opposed to actual gain.

FRED
03-04-08, 11:59 AM
The problem with gold is that it is no different than fashion.

One day, it is fashionable to wear disco pants. Then for 3 decades, it ain't.

You can't eat gold, gold doesn't multiply itself, gold doesn't directly fuel your car or fix your house.

Much like a pair of disco pants or a tulip bulb, gold is worth what the consensus believes it is worth.

At present there is a growing consensus that gold is the best investment, that it must grow in value due to dollar depreciation and/or inflation and/or peak oil.

This may in fact be true, but equally may be a symptom of a subset of the population seeking a safe haven - and that when either a better safe haven returns or the depreciation/inflation/peak oil goes away, gold subsides again as investment demand drops back to normal levels.

The point I am again stressing is that should you invest in gold, be clear on why and what your exit strategy is.

Think 3 steps down the road, or all you are accomplishing is a relative lessening of losses as opposed to actual gain.

This is an excellent point. Here it is again. (http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/janszen101606.html)

How about we outline gold market exit criteria? I'll start:

1. You neighbor is buying it
2. High price volatility where high price volatility is:
a. More than 10% a day
b. More than 20% a week
c. Over a six month period
3. It's over $2000

Do all three need to be true before you get out?

Are there other's you'd add?

Lukester
03-04-08, 12:25 PM
I would add, as an observation suitable for the "presently actionable" category,

A) that undue skepticism has kept many people out of buying sufficient quantities of it while it was still cheap?

B) that "exit strategies" are still manifestly a number of years premature, given the quite evident gross mismatch between ballooning of monetary aggregates since the last gold bull market, and the (till now) relatively tame "ballooning" of the gold price.

C) An over-scrupulous preoccupation with "exit strategies" is more typical in the first half of any bull market to observers, than it is to participants.

D) Participants in the bull market, at least the prudent ones, were never under any illusion that the gold bull market was anything other than cyclical. The observation "gold only has value as long as it remains of critical need due to rampant monetary disarray" is the basic premise which the majority of gold bullmarket participants are fully aware of. To observe that this market is cyclical is to observe the potentially obvious?

E) Premise D) may even be incorrect. Any monetary system supplanting the now disintegrating Bretton Woods II will have been "once bitten twice shy" - there remains the distinct possibility gold will retain some semi-permanent monetary function after the present "monetary disarray" concludes. If that were to occur, the price of gold after the "fools parabolic spike" to come would instead stabilize at a prce far higher than todays? This premise cannot be discounted with full confidence.

In light of all the above, "chasing rashly after gold to secure a personal position in it" for today's investors begins to appear somewhat less "preordained" to end in tears. I would keep a healthy skepticism as to the rapid inevitability of the "exit strategy". Nothing is necessarily as past history would seem to render obvious.


This is an excellent point. Here it is again. (http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/janszen101606.html)

How about we outline gold market exit criteria? I'll start:

1. You neighbor is buying it
2. High price volatility where high price volatility is:
a. More than 10% a day
b. More than 20% a week
c. Over a six month period
3. It's over $2000

Do all three need to be true before you get out?

Are there other's you'd add?

c1ue
03-04-08, 03:38 PM
A) that undue skepticism has kept many people out of buying sufficient quantities of it while it was still cheap?

From the anecdotes I've posted about my 2 fellow owners from the financial industry buying gold/coins and burying them, to the numismatics dealers seeing J6P selling while the rich are buying, it would seem that not many on the rich side nor on the poorer side are sitting on the sidelines.

And do you really think the 'fast money' - USIPs and investment funds and what not - haven't piled onto a good thing?

B) that "exit strategies" are still manifestly a number of years premature, given the quite evident gross mismatch between ballooning of monetary aggregates since the last gold bull market, and the (till now) relatively tame "ballooning" of the gold price.

You are again assuming that it is some fundamental factor driving gold prices such as money supply inflation, as opposed to sentiment. If you are correct, then money supply inflation does take time to correct itself. But if a large part of the gain is sentiment - that can turn around on a dime.

C) An over-scrupulous preoccupation with "exit strategies" is more typical in the first half of any bull market to observers, than it is to participants.

Well, I think a lot of people who bought into internet companies in 2000 would agree now that a coherent exit strategy is important. Internet company valuations clearly (in retrospect) were being driven by sentiment, not fundamentals.

D) Participants in the bull market, at least the prudent ones, were never under any illusion that the gold bull market was anything other than cyclical. The observation "gold only has value as long as it remains of critical need due to rampant monetary disarray" is the basic premise which the majority of gold bullmarket participants are fully aware of. To observe that this market is cyclical is to observe the potentially obvious?

This seems contradictory - on the one hand you say gold prices are going up due to money supply growth/inflation, on the other hand you're saying it is all cyclical.

If you instead meant inflation/deflation/reflation cycle, or a business cycle, that might be more coherent. What are you referring to?

As for basic premise - even within the gold bull side there is not a consensus on what is driving the gold price. Some say currency depreciation, some say commodity inflation, some say safe haven, and various combinations of same.

But again you are assuming there is a fundamental economic factor driving gold as opposed to a mass hysteria factor.

I again point out that gold itself doesn't do a damn thing - no one must have gold to live. It is not consumed, it does not create more of itself much less anything else.

It is purely a repository of the value society assigns to it, and is thus very different than oil, for example.

My point is simply that anything for which the value is dependent on opinion, can fluctuate wildly both up and down and it is wise to try and understand when to get out.

As I've noted before - those who held gold in the Russian banking crisis did do better than those who put their rubles in the bank, but did much poorer than those who held dollars - primarily because having something is better than having nothing.

Unfortunately, the ones who REALLY did well (and exceeded 'average' or 'market' growth in assets) were the ones who borrowed dollars to buy into actual valuable production: oil companies, aluminum companies, etc.

Those who had the right strategy (borrowing dollars to buy stuff) but the wrong implementation (bought Russian 'brands', Russian tractor manufacturing plants, Russian chemical companies, Russian telecom companies, etc etc) did poorer than all but the ruble bankers.

Lukester
03-04-08, 04:07 PM
C1ue -

I've got to leave it to someone else to answer any of these points, if anyone wishes to.

raja
03-04-08, 08:57 PM
I again point out that gold itself doesn't do a damn thing - no one must have gold to live. It is not consumed, it does not create more of itself much less anything else.

It is purely a repository of the value society assigns to it, and is thus very different than oil, for example.

Gold does a lot.

For the functioning of modern society, there needs to be a symbolic marker of exchange, whether it's dollars, virtual dollars (credit cards), gold, silver, coins, etc. I would say that this need of society is ultimately greater than the need for oil.

I agree there is a large "sentiment" factor involved with gold, but it does have certain properties that make it particularly suitable as an repository of value over other items or substances.

I guess the marketplace will tell us just how valuable gold is . . . .

c1ue
03-05-08, 09:01 AM
For the functioning of modern society, there needs to be a symbolic marker of exchange, whether it's dollars, virtual dollars (credit cards), gold, silver, coins, etc. I would say that this need of society is ultimately greater than the need for oil.

I agree that modern society requires something to be used to exchange value - hence money and the dollar.

However, gold is NOT legal tender almost anywhere in the world.

You can buy something with gold right now, but any transaction is basically a black market deal. To actual legally use the gold, you must go through intermediaries to convert the gold into legal tender.

The point is that gold has some legal currency VALUE, but so do used cars, used clothes, and most any other physical object. And like those other physical objects, gold can only be exchanged for value via intermediaries unless you can find cheap search methods to find barter opportunities.

I agree there is a large "sentiment" factor involved with gold, but it does have certain properties that make it particularly suitable as an repository of value over other items or substances.


The properties you refer to are: perception, scarcity, and utter lack of utility.

Scarcity because gold is relatively rare, but there are plenty of other substances more rare: the entire platinum group, the radioactives including Uranium, and the 2 rarest: rhenium and osmium.

radioactives and platinum groups have industrial uses - energy and catalytic converters.

Thus the lack of utility: (from http://www.research.gold.org/supply_demand/)

<TABLE class=tableStats cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 align=center summary="Supply and demand (tonnes)"><TBODY><TR class=valignBottom><TH width=75>Tonnes </TH><TH>2006</TH><TH>2007 <SUP>2</SUP></TH><TH>% ch '07
vs '06</TH><TH>Q4'06</TH><TH>Q1'07</TH><TH>Q2'07</TH><TH>Q3'07</TH><TH>Q4'07 <SUP>2</SUP></TH><TH>% ch Q4'07
vs Q4'06</TH><TH>% ch ytd '07
vs ytd '06</TH></TR><TR><TH width=75>Jewellery consumption </TH><TD>2,283.0</TD><TD>2,425.7</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>708.6</TD><TD>565.2</TD><TD>671.0</TD><TD>603.8</TD><TD>585.7</TD><TD>-17</TD><TD>242</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Industrial & dental </TH><TD>458.0</TD><TD>465.5</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>115.7</TD><TD>115.9</TD><TD>119.0</TD><TD>117.7</TD><TD>112.9</TD><TD>-2</TD><TD>302</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Electronics </TH><TD>306.1</TD><TD>314.6</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>76.2</TD><TD>77.2</TD><TD>80.2</TD><TD>79.8</TD><TD>77.4</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>313</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Other Industrial </TH><TD>91.2</TD><TD>93.2</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>24.3</TD><TD>23.9</TD><TD>24.3</TD><TD>23.7</TD><TD>21.2</TD><TD>-13</TD><TD>284</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Dentistry </TH><TD>60.7</TD><TD>57.7</TD><TD>-5</TD><TD>15.2</TD><TD>14.7</TD><TD>14.5</TD><TD>14.2</TD><TD>14.2</TD><TD>-6</TD><TD>279</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Identifiable Investment </TH><TD>659.0</TD><TD>656.1</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>189.2</TD><TD>144.6</TD><TD>124.9</TD><TD>242.2</TD><TD>144.5</TD><TD>-24</TD><TD>247</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Net retail investment </TH><TD>398.9</TD><TD>405.3</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>110.0</TD><TD>108.2</TD><TD>127.4</TD><TD>102.7</TD><TD>67.0</TD><TD>-39</TD><TD>268</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Bar Hoarding </TH><TD>232.3</TD><TD>243.3</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>74.9</TD><TD>65.3</TD><TD>79.5</TD><TD>59.4</TD><TD>39.1</TD><TD>-48</TD><TD>225</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Official Coin </TH><TD>129.1</TD><TD>125.4</TD><TD>-3</TD><TD>22.9</TD><TD>34.2</TD><TD>33.9</TD><TD>34.4</TD><TD>22.9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>447</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Medals/Imitation Coin </TH><TD>59.4</TD><TD>72.3</TD><TD>22</TD><TD>20.9</TD><TD>20.2</TD><TD>26.0</TD><TD>17.6</TD><TD>8.6</TD><TD>-59</TD><TD>246</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Other identified retail invest. <SUP>3</SUP></TH><TD>-21.9</TD><TD>-35.8</TD><TD>…</TD><TD>-8.7</TD><TD>-11.5</TD><TD>-11.9</TD><TD>-8.7</TD><TD>-3.7</TD><TD>…</TD><TD>…</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>ETFs & similar products <SUP>4</SUP></TH><TD>260.2</TD><TD>250.8</TD><TD>-4</TD><TD>79.1</TD><TD>36.4</TD><TD>-2.6</TD><TD>139.5</TD><TD>77.5</TD><TD>-2</TD><TD>217</TD></TR><TR><TH width=75>Total identifiable demand </TH><TD>3,400.0</TD><TD>3,547.3</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>1,013.4</TD><TD>825.7</TD><TD>915.0</TD><TD>963.6</TD><TD>843.0</TD><TD>-17</TD><TD>250</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Note that of the total 3547 tons of consumption YTD 2007, only around 465 tons are due to dental/electronics/other industrial demand. Jewelry comprises another 2425.7 tons, leaving a mere 656 tons of identifiable investment.

This would make the investment sentiment factor very small, but then you look at the production numbers:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/gold.pdf

In 2004 - the latest year for data available from above, world production of gold was 2430 tons. It is almost certainly higher now, but not that much higher.

Thus gold is a market where total demand roughly equals total supply.

It should be safe to assume that industrial use is fairly constant.

Jewelry consumption also can be assumed consistent with gold price and economic conditions.

The shift of gold demand due to investment could thus easily affect the entire gold supply/demand curve.

From a previous post - I had noted the shift of investment based gold demand in the 1980s; basically investment based demand doubled its relative share when gold price hit its last peak.

No conclusion just yet - merely noting that gold prices could be heavily affected by investment demand effects on the supply/demand balance.