Gold market sentiment is complicated at the moment. There are signs of speculative froth, but at the same time the total speculator net-long position in Comex gold futures is close to its low for the year despite the US$ gold price recently hitting an all-time high. A likely explanation is that large speculators are focusing more on gold ETFs than on gold futures.

The price of a gold ETF that holds physical gold will track the gold price automatically. Therefore, there never will be an increase in the amount of gold held by such an ETF unless bullish speculators become sufficiently enthusiastic to push the market price of the ETF above its net asset value (NAV). When this happens it creates an arbitrage opportunity for the ETF’s Authorised Participants (APs), which results in the addition of gold bullion to the ETF’s inventory.

The following charts from http://www.goldchartsrus.com/ show large gains in the amounts of physical gold held by GLD and IAU, the two most popular gold ETFs. Specifically, the charts show that about 400 tonnes (12M ounces) of gold was added to the combined GLD-IAU inventory over the past few months. This actually isn’t a huge amount within the context of the global gold market, but it points to aggressive buying of the ETFs.

In other words, the evidence of gold-related speculative froth is in the stock market rather than the futures market.

The next chart shows that the silver story is similar. Specifically, the chart shows that about 7,000 tonnes (220M ounces) of physical silver have been added to the inventory of the iShares Silver ETF (SLV) since the March-2020 price low, including about 1,900 tonnes (60M ounces) during the three-week period culminating at the early-August price high.

The fundamental backdrop remains supportive for gold and silver, but sentiment suggests that a multi-month price top was put in place in early-August or will be put in place via a final spike within the next three weeks.

Many things have happened in 2020 that have never happened before, so in some respects it certainly is different this time. The most important of these differences, four of which are discussed below, revolve around the policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the context of human history and in terms of the amount of death that it has caused, the COVID-19 pandemic is not particularly unusual. On average, there have been about two major pandemics every hundred years going back several centuries. Over the past hundred or so years, for example, there was the “Spanish Flu” in 1918 and the “Asian Flu” in 1958. Almost everyone has heard about the Spanish Flu and its horrific death toll, but the Asian Flu is less well known. Suffice to say that the death toll per million of global population resulting from the Asian Flu was about four times the current death toll per million of global population resulting from COVID-19.

The big difference this time is not the disease itself but the reaction to the disease. In particular, never before have large sections of the economy been shuttered by the government in an effort to limit the spread of the disease. Now, however, it has become accepted practice that as soon as the number of COVID-19 cases in an area moves beyond an unspecified low level, the orders go out for many businesses to close and for the public to stay home.

If locking down large sections of the economy is the optimal response to a pandemic, why wasn’t it tried before? Why did it take until 2020 to figure this out?

The answer is associated with the fact that COVID-19 is the first major pandemic to strike under the monetary system that came into being in the early-1970s. Under this system there is no limit, except perhaps an arbitrary level of increase in an arbitrary indicator of “inflation”, to the amount of money that can be created out of nothing. Previously there were limits to money creation imposed by some form of gold standard.

If there were rigid limits to the supply of money, the sort of economic lockdown implemented by many governments this year would cause immediate and extreme hardship to the majority of people. Therefore, it wouldn’t be an option. It is an option today because the ability to create an unlimited amount of money out of nothing presents the opportunity for the government to alleviate, or even to completely eliminate, any short-term pain for the majority of people. It should be obvious that this is an exchange of short-term pain for greater pain in the long-term, but hardly anyone is thinking about the long-term. In fact, the short-term fix that involves showering the populace with money is being advocated as if it didn’t have huge long-term costs.

Another difference between the current pandemic and earlier pandemics is the availability of information. For the first time ever during a major pandemic, almost everyone has up-to-the-minute data regarding the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths. The widespread fixation on the cases/deaths data has fostered the general belief that getting the numbers down takes precedence over everything, long-term consequences be damned.

The third difference is linked to the first difference, that is, to the ability to create an unlimited amount of money out of nothing. This ability has existed for almost half a century, but 2020 is the first time it has been used by the government to provide money directly to the public. Prior to this year it was used exclusively by the central bank to manipulate interest rates and prop-up prices in financial markets. A consequence WILL be much more traditional “inflation” next year than has occurred at any time over the past decade.

The fourth and final difference that I’ll mention today is also linked to the money-creation power. It is that in 2020 some developed-world governments, most notably the US government, have stopped pretending to be concerned about their own indebtedness. Previously they made noises about prudently managing deficits and debts, as if the debt eventually would have to be repaid. However, this year they have tacitly acknowledged the reality that there has never been any intention to pay off the debt, and, therefore, that the debt can expand ad infinitum.

2020 certainly has been a watershed year.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published on 19th July]

Sometimes, financial market relationships that have applied for a very long time stop working. This usually happens because the monetary system undergoes a major change or because the economy is altered in a permanent way by government and/or central bank intervention. It also can happen due to a major technological change that, for example, permanently reduces the demand for a commodity.

As a result of increasing central bank manipulation of money and interest rates, for the past 12 years gold has been getting more expensive relative to commodities that are consumed*. This is because the manipulation has been a) making it more difficult to earn a satisfactory return on investment and b) reducing the appeal of saving in terms of the official money. As central banks reduce the returns available from investing in productive enterprises and punish anyone who chooses to save cash, the demand for a store of value that central banks can’t depreciate naturally rises.

A knock-on effect is that some gold/commodity ratios appear to have been permanently elevated to higher ranges. There still will be periods when gold falls in value relative to these commodities, but the former ceilings no longer apply. In fact, in some cases it may be appropriate to view the former ceilings as the new floors. The two long-term monthly charts displayed below are cases in point.

The first chart shows the gold/platinum ratio. From the early-1970s through to 2015, gold was always near a long-term peak relative to platinum whenever the ratio moved up to 1. However, in 2015 the ratio broke above 1 and continued to trend upward.

A few years ago we speculated that gold/platinum’s former ceiling near 1 had become the new floor, that is, that the gold price would never again make a sustained move below the platinum price. The probability that this is so has since increased, although it’s likely that gold/platinum made an important high in March-2020 and is in the early stages of a 1-2 year decline.

The second chart shows the gold/oil ratio. From 1970 through to the start of 2020, gold was always near a long-term peak relative to oil whenever the ratio moved up to 30. However, during March-April of this year the gold/oil ratio reached a multiple of its previous long-term peak.

As is the situation with the gold/platinum ratio, it’s likely that the gold/oil ratio is in the process of establishing a higher long-term range that involves the former ceiling (30) being the new floor. As is also the situation with the gold/platinum ratio, it’s a good bet that the gold/oil ratio made an important high in April-2020 and is in the early stages of a 1-2 year decline.

It could be a similar story for the gold/silver ratio, although to a lesser degree. It’s likely that the gold/silver ratio has been permanently elevated, but not to the extent where the former ceiling (80-100) is the new floor. Our guess is gold/silver’s new floor is 50-60.

*That’s right, central banks are inadvertently manipulating the gold price upward, not deliberately manipulating it downward.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published last week]

Gold is more money-like and silver is more commodity-like. Consequently, the relationships that we follow involving the gold/GNX ratio (the gold price relative to the price of a basket of commodities) also apply to the gold/silver ratio. In particular, gold, being more money-like, tends to do better than silver when inflation expectations are falling (deflation fear is rising) and economic confidence is on the decline.

Anyone armed with this knowledge would not have been surprised that the collapse in economic confidence and the surge in deflation fear that occurred during February-March of this year was accompanied by a veritable moon-shot in the gold/silver ratio*. Nor would they have been surprised that the subsequent rebounds in economic confidence and inflation expectations have been accompanied by strength in silver relative to gold, leading to a pullback in the gold/silver ratio. The following charts illustrate these relationships.

The first chart compares the gold/silver ratio with the IEF/HYG ratio, an indicator of US credit spreads. It makes the point that during periods when economic confidence plunges, the gold/silver ratio acts like a credit spread (credit spreads rise (widen) when economic confidence falls).

The second chart compares the silver/gold ratio (as opposed to the gold/silver ratio) with the Inflation Expectations ETF (RINF). It makes the point that silver tends to outperform gold when inflation expectations are rising and underperform gold when inflation expectations are falling.

We are expecting a modest recovery in economic confidence and a big increase in inflation expectations over the next 12 months, meaning that we are expecting the fundamental backdrop to shift in silver’s favour. As a result, we are intermediate-term bullish on silver relative to gold. We don’t have a specific target in mind, but, as mentioned in the 16th March Weekly Update when the gold/silver ratio was 105 and in upside blow-off mode, it isn’t a stretch to forecast that at some point over the next three years the gold/silver ratio will trade in the 60s.

Be aware that before silver commences a big up-move in dollar terms and relative to gold there could be another deflation scare. If this is going to happen it probably will do so within the next three months, although we hasten to add that any deflation scare over the remainder of this year will be far less severe than what took place in March.

*The gold/silver ratio hit an all-time intra-day high of 133 and daily-closing high of 126 in March of this year. This was one of the many unprecedented market/economic events of 2020.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published about two weeks ago]

MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) revolves around the idea that governments with the ability to create money are not limited in the way that individuals and corporations are limited. Whereas private entities can only spend the money they have or the money that another private entity is willing to lend to them, a government with the ability to create money is only limited in its spending by the availability of real resources. As long as there is ‘slack’ (what the Keynesians refer to as “idle resources”) in the economy, the government can spend whatever amount of money is necessary to bring to fruition whatever projects/programs the majority of voters desire. MMT’s appeal to the political class is therefore obvious. The only problem is that MMT is based on misunderstandings about money, debt, and how the economy actually works.

If you read the explanations put forward by MMT advocates you could come away with the impression that the ‘theory’ is a discovery or original insight, but nothing could be further from the truth. What MMT actually does is employ accounting tautologies and a very superficial view of how monetary inflation affects the economy to justify theft on a grand scale.

Expanding on the above, when the government creates money out of nothing and then exchanges that money for real resources, it is exchanging nothing for something. In effect, it is diverting resources to itself without paying for them. This is a form of theft, but it is surreptitious because the seller of the resources does not incur the cost of the theft. Instead, the cost is spread across all users of money via an eventual reduction in the purchasing power of money.

According to the MMT advocates, the surreptitious theft that involves diverting resources from the private sector to the government is not a problem until/unless the CPI or some other price index calculated by the government rises above an arbitrary level. In other words, surreptitious government theft on a grand scale is deemed to be perfectly fine as long as it doesn’t result in problematic “price inflation”.

Further to the above, there is a major ethical problem with MMT. However, there are also economic problems and practical issues.

The main economic problem is that the damage that can be caused by monetary inflation isn’t limited to “price inflation”. In fact, “price inflation” is the least harmful effect of monetary inflation. The most harmful is mal-investment, which stems from the reality that newly-created money is not spread evenly through the economy and therefore has a non-uniform effect on prices. That is, monetary inflation doesn’t only increase the “general price level”, it also distorts relative prices. This distortion of the price signals upon which decisions are based hampers the economy.

Another economic problem is that the programs/projects that are financed by the creation of money out of nothing will not consume only the “idle resources”. Instead, the government will bid away resources that otherwise would have been used in private ventures. The private ventures that are prevented from happening will be part of the unseen cost of the increased government spending.

A practical issue is that the government’s ability to spend would be limited only by numbers that are calculated and set by the government. There is no good reason to expect that this limitation would be any more effective than the limitation imposed by the “debt ceiling”. The “debt ceiling” was raised more than 70 times over the past 60 years and now has been suspended.

A second practical issue is that it often takes years for the effects of monetary inflation to become evident in the CPI. Therefore, even if there were an honest attempt by the government to determine a general price index and strictly limit money creation to prevent this index from increasing by more than a modest amount, the long delays between monetary inflation and price inflation would render the whole exercise impossible. By the time it became clear that too much money had been created, a major inflation problem would be baked into the cake.

It’s often the case that what should be is very different to what is, so MMT being bad from both ethical and economics perspectives probably won’t get in the way of its implementation. After all and as mentioned above, it has great appeal to the political class. Also, it could be made to seem reasonable to the average person.

In fact, even though it hasn’t been officially introduced, for all intents and purposes MMT is already being put into practice in the US. We say this because the US federal government recently ramped up its spending by trillions of dollars, safe in the knowledge that “inflation” is not an immediate problem and that the Fed is prepared to monetise debt ‘until the cows come home’. Furthermore, another trillion dollar ‘stimulus’ program is in the works and there is a high probability that a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure-spending program will be approved early next year. Clearly, there is no longer any concern within the government about budget deficits or debt levels. They aren’t even pretending to be concerned anymore.

The good news is that the implementation of MMT should accelerate the demise of the current monetary system. It means that there is now a high probability of systemic collapse during this decade. The bad news is that what comes next could be worse, with a one-world fiat currency, or perhaps a few regional fiat currencies, replacing today’s system of national currencies.

[This blog post is a modified excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

Financial market discussions and analyses often focus on fundamental issues that don’t matter, or at least don’t provide useful clues regarding the likely future performance of the market in question. A good example is the so-called “global US$ short position”, which is regularly cited in support of a bullish outlook for the US$.

The argument is that the roughly $12 trillion of US$-denominated debt outside the US constitutes a short position that will create massive demand for dollars and thus put irresistible upward pressure on the Dollar Index (DX). There is an element of truth to the argument, but the “global US$ short position” always exists. It exists during US$ bull markets and it exists during US$ bear markets, because it is simply an effect of the US$ being the currency of choice for the majority of international transactions. Furthermore, the shaded area on the following chart shows that the quantity of dollar-denominated debt outside the US steadily increases over time and that even the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis resulted in only a minor interruption to the long-term trend. Consequently, the existence of this debt isn’t a major intermediate-term or long-term driver of the US dollar’s exchange rate.

Source: https://www.bis.org/statistics/gli2004.pdf

The element of truth to the “global US$ short position” argument is that a significant strengthening of the US currency relative to the currencies of other countries will increase the cost of servicing dollar-denominated debt in those countries. This lessens the ability to borrow additional US dollars and puts pressure on existing borrowers to reduce their US$ obligations. In effect, it leads to some short covering that magnifies the upward trend in the US dollar’s exchange rate. This means that while the “global US$ short position” won’t be the cause of a strengthening trend in the US$, it can exacerbate such a trend.

We mentioned above that there is no empirical evidence that the “global US$ short position” drives trends in the US dollar’s exchange rate, but that doesn’t guarantee that the pile of US$-denominated debt outside the US won’t become an important exchange-rate driver in the future. The reason it won’t become important in the future is that prices are driven by CHANGES in supply and demand. The US$12T+ of foreign dollar-denominated debt represents part of the existing demand for dollars, meaning that the demand-related effects of this debt on the dollar’s exchange rate are ‘in’ the market already. At the same time, the total supply of dollars is growing rapidly.

At this point it’s worth addressing the idea that the Fed would be powerless to stop the US$ from appreciating if a major ‘debt deflation’ got underway. This is nonsense. Until the law of supply and demand is repealed, someone with the unlimited ability to increase the supply of something WILL have the power to reduce the price of that thing.

The Fed’s power to reduce the relative value of the US dollar was very much on display over the past few months. The financial-market panic and economic collapse of March-2020 predictably resulted in a desperate scramble for US dollars, leading to a fast rise in the Dollar Index. However, it took the Fed only two weeks to overwhelm the surging demand for dollars with a deluge of new dollar supply.

The upshot is that the so-called global US$ short position is not a valid reason to be a US$ bull.

With regard to performance over intermediate-term (3-18 month) time periods, the fundamentals that matter for the US$ are relative equity-market strength and interest rate differentials. This combination of drivers has been neutral for more than a year but soon could turn bearish for the US$.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

The year-over-year rate of growth in US True Money Supply (TMS), a.k.a. the US monetary inflation rate, has continued its journey “to da moon.” Based on the monthly monetary data for May-2020, it is now at 27% and still rising rapidly. The following chart shows that the money-supply growth surge engineered by “Mississippi Jay” Powell* now dwarfs the earlier efforts of “Easy Al” Greenspan and “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke.

Anyone who thinks that this year’s monetary inflation moon-shot won’t lead to much higher prices for many things is kidding themselves. It has already fuelled the fastest 40% rise in the S&P500 Index in history, but unlike the other money-supply growth surges of the past 20 years the current episode also should lead to substantial gains in what most people think of as “inflation”. Not so much this year, because in the short-term there are counter-balancing forces such as an increasing desire to hold cash, but during 2021-2022.

Apart from its larger scale, there are three reasons that the money-supply growth surge engineered by “Mississippi Jay” should lead to much higher “price inflation”** than the money-supply growth surges engineered by his predecessors. The first is that although the Fed is still buying US government debt via Primary Dealers as opposed to directly from the government, it is crystal clear that the Fed is monetising the US government’s deficit. That’s why the Federal government is no longer even pretending to be concerned about the level of its spending and indebtedness. In effect, MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is now being implemented in the US.

MMT is based on the ridiculous idea that there should be no upper limit on government spending/borrowing, facilitated via the creation of new money, as long as the CPI’s growth rate is below a certain level. It completely ignores all effects of monetary inflation apart from the most superficial. It also ignores the reality that government spending tends to be counterproductive because it is driven by political considerations and not market forces.

The good thing about MMT is that it should short-circuit the boom-bust cycle, in effect almost skipping the boom and going directly to an inflationary bust. This is because it lays bare the crudeness of the central bank’s monetary machinations. No longer is the central bank (incorrectly) perceived as finely tuning interest rates to keep the economy on an even keel. Under MMT it is seen to be pumping out whatever amount of new money the government demands.

The boom associated with this year’s monetary inflation moon-shot began in April and probably will end within the next six months. Actually, it might have ended already.

The second reason to think that this year’s money-supply growth surge will be followed by substantial “price inflation” is that the lockdowns of the past few months have damaged supply chains. This, combined with the shift away from globalisation, will lead to reduced supply and/or less efficient production of goods.

The third reason is supply constraints on important commodities. Firstly, this year’s lockdowns caused the mining industry to delay expansion plans and cancel new developments. Secondly, in labour-intensive mining countries such as South Africa, the requirement to implement social distancing following the return to work has made and will continue to make the mines less efficient. Thirdly, many small-scale commodity producers that together account for a significant portion of total supply have been put out of business by the lockdowns. Fourthly, the “El Nino” weather event of 2020-2021 and the Grand Solar Minimum that should start becoming influential in 2021-2022 probably will result in extreme weather volatility, which potentially will disrupt the supply of important agricultural commodities during 2021-2022. Lastly, due to the virus-related lockdowns and associated economic pressures there is heightened risk of war in the Middle East, implying heightened risk of an oil supply shock.

In summary, the latest flood of new money created by central banks will be more widely perceived to be “inflationary” than the other ‘money floods’ of the past 20 years. In addition, the latest money flood has occurred near the start of a multi-year period during which the production of many commodities and manufactured goods will be hampered. A likely result is substantial “price inflation” during 2021-2022.

*“Mississippi Jay” is the nickname we’ve given to current Fed Chair Jerome (Jay) Powell. The name links Powell with John Law, the roguish Scotsman (is there any other kind?) who, while residing in France in the early-1700s, engineered the Mississippi Bubble via a scheme that involved creating an extraordinary amount of new currency.

**We don’t like the term “price inflation”, because there is no such thing as an economy-wide average price level and because at any given time some prices will be rising while others are falling. However, we use the term because it is generally understood to mean a rising cost of living for most people.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary published at TSI last week]

In most countries/regions, the money-supply growth rate bottomed in 2019 and by the beginning of this year was in a clear-cut upward trend. Then came the “coronacrisis”, involving widespread economic lockdowns and unprecedented central bank money/credit creation designed to counteract the effects of the lockdowns. A result was a veritable explosion in monetary inflation rates around the world during March and April (April being the latest month for which there is complete money-supply information). Here are some examples:

1) The combination of US and euro-zone money supply that we call G2 True Money Supply (TMS) was at a 10-year low in the middle of last year. It is now at an all-time high. This is by far the most bullish force currently acting on equity and commodity prices.

2) Early last year Australia was in danger of experiencing monetary deflation, but this country’s monetary inflation rate has since rocketed to an all-time high of 24%. This is not bearish for the A$ relative to other currencies and especially not relative to the US$ (we suspect that the A$ will trade at parity with the US$ within two years), because the A$’s exchange rate is influenced to a far greater extent by the commodity markets than by the local monetary inflation rate. However, it suggests that in Australia the prices of goods, services and assets will go up a lot over the next few years.

3) The Bank of Canada has been a little more circumspect than most other central banks over the past few months, but in response to the recent crisis it has done enough to boost the country’s monetary inflation rate to near a 10-year high. A year ago it was near a 20-year low.

4) We occasionally read articles that attempt to make the case that central bank money pumping does not lead to higher prices, with the situation in Japan cited as evidence. Japan supposedly is relevant because the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has been aggressively monetising assets for a long time with minimal effect on prices.

As we’ve noted many times in the past, prices have been stable in Japan because Japan’s monetary inflation rate has oscillated at a relatively low level for decades. Whatever the BOJ has been doing, it has NOT been pumping money at a rapid rate. Even now, in the face of additional monetary stimulus, the year-over-year rate of growth in Japan’s M2 money supply is below 4%. This contrasts with a US money-supply growth rate of almost 20%.

Therefore, the low rate of price inflation in Japan is in no way mysterious. It’s exactly what would be expected from an economy with a low rate of monetary inflation and some productivity growth.

In summary, outside of Japan the supply of currency is increasing at such a fast pace that there WILL be substantial price increases over the next two years. However, the price increases won’t be uniform. For example, due to a high unemployment rate the price of labour probably will be a laggard, and due to their relative supply situations the price of oil probably won’t rise by as much as the prices of uranium, natural gas, copper, nickel and zinc.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary posted at TSI last week]

The rebound from the H1-2020 plunge into recession probably will look like a ‘V’, at least initially. This is not because conditions will become positive as quickly as they became negative, but because conditions got so bad so quickly that charts of economic statistics such as industrial production and retail sales will appear to make a ‘V’ bottom in Q2-Q3 of this year. However, the ‘V’ won’t mark the start of a genuine recovery.

The following charts show what we mean by “got so bad so quickly”.

The first chart shows that within the space of three months the Small Business Optimism Index collapsed from a level that indicated a high level of optimism to one of the lowest levels in the 34-year history of the index. The only other decline of this magnitude occurred during the 2005-2008 period and took more than two years.

The second chart shows that Industrial Production has just registered its largest month-over-month decline in at least 101 years. By this measure, even the worst months of the Great Depression were not as bad as April-2020.

Source: dshort

Source: Hedgeye

There are thousands of people who have lost their businesses — in some cases, businesses that they spent the bulk of their adult lives building — over the past two months as a result of the lockdowns. These people probably are feeling angry and/or devastated. However, we get the impression that the vast majority of people have accepted the lockdowns with equanimity. They haven’t taken to the streets to protest the economic destruction that has been wrought by their political overlords. Instead, they have shrugged off the most rapid decline in industrial production in history and a sudden rise in the unemployment rate from below 4% to above 20%. How is this possible?

It’s possible only because the government and the Fed have showered the people with money. The money that has been created out of nothing is acting like pain-suppressing medication. In effect, the government and the Fed have administered anaesthetic so that the patient felt no pain as vital organs were removed. Without this anaesthetic, the populace would not have remained docile as its basic rights were cancelled and its economic prospects were greatly diminished.

Money, however, is just the medium of exchange. It facilitates the division of labour*, but it does not constitute real wealth. For example, if every current dollar were instantly replaced by ten dollars, there wouldn’t be any additional wealth. The point is that the government and the Fed cannot make up for the decline in real wealth caused by the lockdowns by providing more money. All they can do is change the prices of the wealth that remains.

There will be a ‘V’ shaped recovery, but due to the destruction of real wealth stemming from the lockdowns the rising part of the V is bound to be much shorter than the declining part of the V. This will lead to a general realisation that life for the majority of people will be far more difficult in the future than it was over the preceding few years.

Returning to our medical analogy, eventually the anaesthetic will wear off and the patient will have to start dealing with the consequences of having lost a kidney, a spleen, a lung and half a liver.

*In the absence of money, a tomato farmer who needed some dental work would have to locate a dentist who needed a few crates of tomatoes.

[This blog post is a modified excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

At around this time last month we noted that the Fed had pushed the year-over-year rate of growth in US True Money Supply (TMS)*, also known as the US monetary inflation rate, to a multi-year high of 11.3%, and that based on what the Fed subsequently had done the monetary inflation rate could reach 15%-20% by the middle of this year. With the monthly monetary data for April having been published last week, we now know that the aforementioned range has been reached already. As illustrated below, as at the end of April the US monetary inflation rate was close to 20%. Next month’s rate should be even higher.

This is banana-republic-style money creation, although it isn’t unprecedented for the US. The above chart shows that a near-20% monetary inflation rate also was attained in January-2002. Back then it was the bursting of the stock market bubble followed by the 9/11 attacks that caused the Fed to panic and flood the financial system with new money.

In a way, the shock to the financial markets resulting from the attacks by terrorists in September-2001 is similar to the shock to the financial markets resulting from the COVID-19 lockdowns. That’s despite the huge differences in the economic ramifications (the damage inflicted on the overall economy by the 9/11 attacks was minor and short-term, whereas the damage inflicted on the overall economy by the virus-related lockdowns of 2020 will prove to be major on both a short-term basis and a long-term basis).

The similar reactions of the financial markets (most notably the stock market) to the events of 2001 and 2020 firstly can be put down to the fact that both situations involved a sudden increase in uncertainty. Investors and speculators knew that the world had changed for the worse, but were ‘in the dark’ regarding many of the details. Secondly, in both cases there was an immediate and aggressive attempt by policy-makers to ‘reflate’.

Some of the results of this year’s monetary inflation moonshot should be similar to the results of the 2001 episode. In particular, this year’s explosion in the supply of US dollars should lead to a weaker US$ on the foreign exchange market (the Dollar Index commenced a multi-year bearish trend in January-2002 and probably will do the same within the next few months), a higher gold price, higher commodity prices and — eventually — higher equity prices.

The most important difference is that over the years ahead the economy will stay weak and, as a result, the unemployment rate will stay high. This is because flooding the economy with new dollars not only does nothing to make up for the destruction of real wealth caused by the lockdowns, it gets in the way of wealth creation by falsifying price signals and keeping ‘zombie companies’ alive.

*TMS is the sum of currency in circulation, demand deposits and savings deposits. It does not include bank reserves, time deposits or money market funds.

According to my Gold True Fundamentals Model (GTFM), the gold market’s “true fundamentals” most recently shifted from bearish to bullish in December of last year. As indicated on the following weekly chart by the blue line being above 50, at the end of last week they were still bullish. This means that the fundamental backdrop is still applying upward pressure to the gold price.

As previously explained, I use the term “true fundamentals” to distinguish the fundamentals that actually matter from the largely irrelevant issues that many gold-market analysts and commentators focus on.

According to many pontificators on the gold market, gold’s fundamentals include the volume of metal flowing into the inventories of gold ETFs, China’s gold imports, the amount of “registered” gold at the Comex, India’s monsoon and wedding seasons, jewellery demand, the amount of gold being bought/sold by various central banks, changes in mine production and scrap supply, and wild guesses regarding JP Morgan’s exposure to gold. These things are distractions at best. For example, a gold investor/trader could have ignored everything that has been written over the past 20 years about the amount of gold in Comex warehouses and been none the worse for it.

On an intermediate-term (3-12 month) basis, there is a strong tendency for the US$ gold price to trend in the opposite direction to confidence in the US financial system and economy. That’s why most of the seven inputs to my GTFM are measures of confidence. Two examples are credit spreads and the relative strength of the banking sector. The model is useful, in that over the past two decades all intermediate-term upward trends in the gold price occurred while the GTFM was bullish most of the time and all intermediate-term downward trends in the gold price occurred while the GTFM was bearish most of the time.

However, upward corrections can occur in the face of bearish fundamentals and downward corrections can occur in the face of bullish fundamentals. For example, there was a sizable downward correction in the gold market in March of this year in the face of bullish fundamentals. Such corrections often are signalled by sentiment indicators.

Right now, the fundamentals are supportive while sentiment is warning of short-term downside risk.

As long as the fundamentals remains supportive, any short-term decline in the gold price should be ‘corrective’, that is, it should be within the context of a multi-year upward trend.

In a blog post on 31st March I argued that MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) had been surreptitiously put into practice in the US. However, according to a quote from Lacy Hunt (Hoisington Investment Management) included by John Mauldin in a recent letter, what the Fed and the US government are doing doesn’t qualify as MMT.

According to Lacy Hunt: “For the Fed to engage in true MMT, a major regulatory change to the Federal Reserve Acts would be necessary: The Fed’s liabilities would need to be made legal tender. Having the Treasury sell securities directly to the Fed could do this; the Treasury’s deposits would be credited and then the Treasury would write checks against these deposits. In this case, the Fed would, in essence, write checks to pay the obligations of the Treasury. If this change is enacted, rising inflation would ensue and the entire international monetary system would be severely destabilized and the US banking system would be irrelevant.”

One problem with Lacy Hunt’s argument is that some of the Fed’s liabilities are already legal tender and have been for a very long time. I’m referring to the $1.9 trillion of “Currency in circulation” (physical notes and coins). This currency sits on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. Also, the money that the US Treasury spends comes from the Treasury General Account, which also sits on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet.

Admittedly, the Fed currently does not buy Treasury debt directly. Instead, it acts through Primary Dealers (PDs). The PDs buy the debt from the government and the Fed buys the debt from the PDs. When this happens, new money is credited by the Fed to the commercial bank accounts of PDs and thus becomes a liability of the private banking system. At the same time, the private banks are ‘made whole’ by having new reserves added to their accounts at the Fed.

In other words, rather than money going directly from the Fed to the Treasury General Account (TGA), under the current way of doing things the money gets to the same place indirectly via PDs. This enables the commercial banking system to get its cut, but from both the government’s perspective and the money supply perspective there is no difference between the Fed directly buying government debt and the Fed using intermediaries (PDs) to do the buying.

Now, the Fed’s QE programs of 2008-2014 generated a lot less “price inflation” than many people feared. This was largely because the new money was injected into the financial markets (bonds and stocks) and only gradually trickled into the ‘real economy’. To some extent what happened over the past couple of months is similar, but with two significant differences.

One significant difference between the Fed’s recent actions and the QE of 2008-2014 is that for some of its new money and credit creation the Fed is bypassing the PDs. No regulatory change was needed for this to happen. Instead, as I explained in my earlier post, the Fed created Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) that do the actual monetising of assets and the lending of new money into existence. In effect, new money is now being created by the Fed and sent directly to various non-bank entities, including municipalities, private businesses and bondholders.

The second significant difference is the crux of the issue and why the US now has MMT in all but name.

You see, the essence of MMT isn’t the mechanical process via which money gets to the government. The essence is the concept that the government is only limited in its money and debt creation by “inflation”. The idea is that until “inflation” becomes a problem, the government can create as much new money and debt as it wants as part of an effort to achieve full employment. A related idea is that government spending does not have to be financed by taxation.

Is there really any doubt that the US government no longer feels constrained in its creation of debt, the bulk of which is being purchased indirectly using new money created by the Fed? After all, in the space of less than two months the US federal government has blown-out its expected annual deficit from around $1T to around $4T and is talking about massive additional spending/borrowing increases to support the economy. Clearly, no senior politician from either of the main parties is giving any serious thought to how this debt will be repaid or the future implications of the deficit blow-out.

The bottom line is that the US doesn’t have MMT in law, but it does have MMT in fact.

Economics isn’t about money. Money is important because it facilitates the division of labour, but good economic theory applies with or without money. Economics is about how humans allocate scarce resources. This implies that trade-offs are critical to the good economist, because he/she understands that allocating scarce resources to satisfy one need in the present means that these resources will not be available to satisfy another need in the present or the future*. Right now, the entire world is dealing with a trade-off that has far-reaching consequences.

The trade-off is associated with the COVID-19 threat and has been portrayed as being between lives and money, but the correct way to view the trade-off is between lives today and lives in the future. Unfortunately, the people making the decisions regarding what should be done have neither the data nor the knowledge to properly analyse the trade-off.

For one thing, when decisions were made to implement widespread lock-downs these people clearly had no inkling of the short-term cost, in terms of illness and lives, of NOT locking down the economy. We know this because as recently as six weeks ago there were projections of millions of deaths in the US alone**, but the actual rates of death and serious illness have been vastly lower than projected. The experts who made these wildly inaccurate forecasts claim that the vastly lower death rates are due mainly to the lock-downs, but we know this isn’t true based on what happened in countries that didn’t implement draconian social distancing measures. For example, although Sweden, which was not forced into lock-down mode, has experienced a slightly higher rate of infection than its Scandinavian neighbours, its rate of COVID-19 infection is about the same as that of Germany, which is considered to have done a good job of containing the virus via strict social-distancing measures, and much lower than those of Spain, Italy, France and the US.

Even more importantly, the decision-makers are clueless about the long-term costs, in terms of lost lives and lowered living standards, that likely will result from the lock-downs. How could they not be clueless, because in order to make a reasonable assessment you must have a thorough understanding of history and good economic theory. As far as I can tell, not one of the health/medical officials or political leaders at the forefront of the COVID-19 decision-making process has this understanding.

Regarding the cost to human life stemming from locking down large sections of the economy, there is a lot of evidence that people who are poor and out of work are more likely to die than people who are financially comfortable. This is not only because the poorer people have access to lower-quality healthcare and food, but also because they are more prone to stress-related diseases and/or more likely to be subject to physical violence. In addition, a more immediate negative consequence of the lock-downs is that some people have been denied elective surgeries and others have decided not to seek immediate medical treatment for minor issues. This will lead to many deaths over the coming 12 months that would have been avoided with earlier medical intervention.

Note that I refer to GOOD economic theory above, because only a good economist is capable of comprehending the indirect, long-term and unintended consequences of a policy. A bad economist may well believe that shutting down the entire economy for 2+ months is akin to a very long weekend, and that everything will go back to normal soon after the shut-down ends — just like it does every Monday following the 2-day weekend shut-down. Larry Summers is a case in point.

The upshot is that people with power/authority are making decisions regarding a major trade-off between lives today and lives in the future while being in possession of insufficient information about one side and almost no information/knowledge about the other side of the trade-off.

*This is related to Frederic Bastiat’s Broken Window parable, in that what is immediately obvious is the benefit achieved by allocating the resource to satisfy one current need but what isn’t immediately obvious are the benefits that would have accrued if the resources had been allocated differently.

**The experts at Imperial College predicted 2.2M deaths in the US and 510K deaths in the UK.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

Last week, a highly paid (we assume) JP Morgan analyst opined:

“When it comes to market developments, we believe that the Fed’s action last Thursday represents a pivotal moment in this crisis. Powell’s statement included that “we will continue to use these powers forcefully, proactively, and aggressively until we are confident that we are solidly on the road to recovery” and probably the most important, historic statement, “We should make them whole. They did not cause this.” This crisis is different from any other in recent history in that it was not caused in any way by businesses or investors. Unhindered by moral hazard, the response of fiscal and monetary authorities is and will continue to be unprecedented, with the goal of essentially making everyone ‘whole.’ We believe the significance of this development is underestimated by markets, and this reinforces our view of a full asset price recovery, and equity markets reaching all-time highs next year, likely by H1. Investors with focus on negative upcoming earnings and economic developments are effectively ‘fighting the Fed,’ which was historically a losing proposition.”

Well, if moral hazard was the only thing that prevented the Fed from acting in the past to eliminate everyone’s losses, then why has the Fed never bothered to eliminate poverty? After all, not every poor person is in that situation due to having done something wrong. In particular, none of the children living in poverty are to blame for their predicament.

Taking a broader view, if it is possible for the central bank to make everyone “whole”, then why are some countries poor? These countries have central banks that are capable of doing what the Fed is now promising to do.

The problem, of course, is that the central bank cannot add real wealth to the economy. It cannot produce anything of real value. All it can do is conjure money and credit out of nothing, thus setting in motion countless exchanges of nothing for something and distorting the price signals upon which markets rely. This is a recipe for more poverty and generally lower living standards in the long term.

At some point during the second half of this year, the release of pent-up demand as restrictions are removed and people go back to work, combined with the flood of new money generated by the Fed, could make it seem as if there has been a ‘V’ bottom in the economy and that the entire recession lasted only about four months. This could enable the SPX to return to within 10% of its February-2020 all-time high before year-end. However, the price distortions that have been and will be caused by the effort to make everyone “whole” will prevent a sustainable recovery.

The deluge of new money will boost asset prices and the prices of life’s necessities, but many businesses that closed their doors during March of 2020 will never re-open and many people who lost their jobs will remain unemployed (and thus dependent upon government handouts). Also, many of the people who do end up with jobs will find that their real incomes have fallen, because there will be an excess supply of labour and the currency’s loss of purchasing power will be reflected to the greatest extent in the prices of things that are in relatively short supply. For the majority of people, therefore, the post-shutdown economy will never be as good as the pre-shutdown economy, not despite the Fed’s efforts but largely because of them.

In a blog post three weeks ago, I mentioned that in TSI commentaries over the past year I had been tracking the current performance of the gold mining sector (as represented by the HUI) with its performance during the mid-1980s (as represented by the Barrons Gold Mining Index – BGMI). The 1980s comparison predicted the big moves that have occurred since May of last year, including the Q1-2020 crash. I concluded the earlier post with the comment: “History informs us that after a crash comes a rebound and after a rebound there is usually a test of the crash low.”

Here is an update of the weekly chart that I have been showing at TSI for almost a year. The latest price shown for the HUI is last week’s close. The chart suggests that the obligatory post-crash rebound is almost complete and that the next move of consequence will be a decline to test the March low.

If a test of the March low occurs, it should be successful (it’s highly probable that the gold mining indices and ETFs made their bottoms for the year last month). However, with regard to future outcomes there is always more than one realistic possibility. For example, although the historical record suggests that a test of the March low will happen within the next two months, a more bullish short-term outcome is possible.

Parameters that could be used to indicate that a different short-term scenario was playing out have been mentioned at TSI, but at this stage I think the odds favour a test of the crash low for pretty much everything that has crashed, including the gold sector. Looking beyond the short-term, I expect that the major fundamental differences between the late-1980s and the present will assert themselves during the second half of this year and cause the current market for gold mining stocks to diverge (in a bullish way) from the 1980s path.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary published at TSI]

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which isn’t modern and isn’t a theory (in the true meaning of the word), is now being put into practice in many countries, including the US. What’s happening isn’t being called MMT, but that’s what it is.

Under cover of the “coronacrisis”, we are now witnessing the introduction of MMT. Specifically, in an effort to alleviate the short-term pain associated with the economy-wide shut-downs that they are enforcing as part of history’s biggest ever over-reaction, governments are now promising to spend money as if they had access to an unlimited supply of the stuff. They can do this because with the help of the central bank they do have access to an unlimited supply of the stuff.

The US government and the Fed are leading the way and in doing so all lines that are supposed to separate these two organisations are being blurred or eliminated. To put it another way, the pretence that the Fed is independent of the government has been dropped.

First, there’s the $2 trillion “stimulus” package that was just signed into effect by President Trump. How could a government that supposedly had to limit the pace of its deficit spending suddenly decide to instantly triple its deficit? Where is the money coming from to do this? After all, nobody is talking about increasing taxes. On the contrary, there is talk of delaying and reducing taxes. Clearly, the plan is for the money to be created out of nothing by the Fed.

Even more tellingly, there are the programs introduced by the Fed over the past two weeks. These are:

a) The Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), via which the Fed will buy commercial paper from issuers.

b) The Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF), via which the Fed will lend to financial institutions secured by assets purchased by the financial institution from money market mutual funds.

c) The Main Street Business Lending Program (MSBLP), via which the Fed will lend directly to small and medium-size businesses.

d) The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF), via which the Fed will buy corporate bonds from issuers.

e) The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), via which the Fed will buy corporate bonds and bond ETFs in the secondary market.

f) The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), via which the Fed will support the issuance of asset-backed securities.

Now, the Fed isn’t supposed to do any of the above, but it is getting around the existing regulations by creating Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) that will do the actual buying and lending. The US government will fund these SPVs with initial capital that the Fed will leverage 10:1. That is, for every dollar injected by the government into one of these SPVs, the Fed will create 10 new dollars via the traditional methods of fractional reserve banking.

The truly crazy thing is that the dollars that the government will inject into the Fed’s SPVs were previously created out of nothing when the Fed monetised Treasury securities. So, the Fed creates money out of nothing. This money then goes to the government. The government then deposits some of this money into the Fed’s new SPVs, and based on this injection of ‘capital’ the Fed creates a lot more money out of nothing.

The indirect costs, in terms of reduced productivity, higher unemployment and reduced living standards, of this money creation will be huge and long-lasting, but we’ll leave the discussion of these longer-term issues until after the immediate crisis has abated.

Our main point today is that the method of government funding appears to have changed in a permanent way. No longer will governments feel constrained by their abilities to tax the population and borrow from bond investors. From now on they will act like they have unrestricted access to a bottomless pool of money.

Inflation expectations have crashed along with the stock market and the oil price. This is evidenced by the following chart of the 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate, which indicates the average CPI that the market expects the government to report over the years ahead. Since the advent of the TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) market in 2003, the Expected CPI was only below last Friday’s level of 0.50% during November-December of 2008 and January of 2009, that is, during the concluding months of the Global Financial Crisis.

The collapse in inflation expectations over the past several weeks does not indicate that “inflation” will be much lower in the future. On the contrary, beyond the short-term it greatly increases the risk of higher “inflation”.

Over the next few months the CPI will be lower than would have been the case in the absence of the coronavirus-related restrictions to economic activity and the plunge in the oil price, but by this time next year the CPI probably will be much higher due to the following:

1) Aggressive central bank reactions to the economic slowdown and the stock market plunge. These reactions will distort prices and hamper the economy, but to a man with nothing except a hammer every problem looks like a nail. To a central banker, every economic problem other than obvious “price inflation” looks like a reason to create more money and credit out of nothing. Also, to the central bankers of the world the recent rapid decline in inflation expectations is like a giant cattle prod pushing them in the direction of pro-inflation monetary policy.

2) In addition to aggressive monetary stimulus there will be aggressive fiscal stimulus. This would be the case anyway under such circumstances, but in the US the short-term stimulus from increased government spending will be more aggressive than usual due to this being an election year.

3) Once the coronavirus threat dissipates, there will be the natural release of pent-up demand.

4) The widespread shutting down of mines, production facilities and trade-related transportation will damage supply chains, in some cases permanently due to parts of ‘chain’ going bust, and ensure that it will take more time than usual for producers to respond to increased demand and rising prices.

Adding the natural force of pent-up demand release to the unnatural forces of monetary/fiscal stimulus and supply disruptions resulting from forced shut-downs should mean that “inflation” will be materially higher a year from now than would have been the case in the absence of the Q1-2020 calamity. My prediction: During the first half of 2021 the official US CPI, which routinely understates the increase in the cost of living, will print above 4%.

In TSI commentaries since May-June last year I have been tracking the current performance of the gold mining sector with its performance during the mid-1980s. More specifically, I have been comparing the current HUI with the mid-1980s Barrons Gold Mining Index (BGMI). The chart that illustrates this model is displayed below.

The model predicted the rapid rise in the HUI during June-August of last year, the steep correction from a peak by early-September to an October-November low, the rise to a new multi-year high by January-2020 and the crash to a low in March-2020. The big predictions associated with this model are now in the past, which is why I can take the liberty of including it in a free blog post.

The main point I want to make with this post is that even though the present often looks very different from any previous time, the bulk of what happens in the financial markets has happened before. It’s often just a matter of finding the right historical comparison, which is always easier said than done. Also, valid comparisons with previous times always have limited lifespans. It’s possible, for example, that my comparison with the mid-1980s has almost reached the end of its useful life.

Knowledge of how markets have performed in the past, including the distant past (not just the preceding 10-20 years), is useful even if it doesn’t lead to a specific history-based model. For example, anyone with knowledge of market history knows that when the gold mining sector is stretched to the upside near the start of a general stock market crash, it always crashes with the broad market. As far as I know, there have been no exceptions.

History informs us that after a crash comes a rebound and after a rebound there is usually a test of the crash low.

[This blog post is a modified excerpt (with an updated chart) from a TSI commentary published one month ago]

Last July the gold/silver ratio came within 10% of its 50-year high, which was reached in 1991, and within 15% of its multi-century high, which was reached in the early 1940s. The following monthly chart from goldchartsrus.com shows that on a monthly closing basis the ratio has just made a new multi-decade high and is now within 10% of a 300-year high, meaning that silver has almost never been cheaper relative to gold than it is today.

One way to interpret the gold/silver ratio chart is that silver has huge upside potential relative to gold. I think this interpretation is correct, but there is a realistic chance that the ratio will make a new multi-century high (in effect, a new all-time high) before silver embarks on a major upward trend relative to gold.

This is not my preferred scenario, but a new all-time high in the gold/silver ratio could occur within the next 12 months due to a major deflation scare.

My current expectation is that over the bulk of this year there will be US dollar weakness and signs of increasing “inflation”, which is a financial/economic landscape that would favour silver over gold and pave the way for some mean reversion in the gold/silver ratio. However, if the stock market bubble were to burst, economic confidence probably would tank and there would be a panic towards ‘liquidity’. For the general public that would involve building-up cash, but for many large investors it would involve buying Treasury bonds and gold. Silver eventually would benefit from the strength in the gold market, but the silver market is not big enough and liquid enough to accommodate investors who are in a hurry to find a safe home for billions of dollars of wealth. Initially, therefore, the gold/silver ratio could rise sharply under such a scenario.

The scenario described above would lead to panic at the Fed, eventually resulting in the introduction of the most aggressive asset monetisation scheme to date. That’s the point when silver probably would commence a major catch-up move.

A 23rd February blog post by Sven Henrich hits a couple of nails on the head. Here’s an excerpt:

“…the virus…clearly has a short term effect, but rather the broader risk is the excess created by ultra-loose monetary policies that has pushed investors recklessly into asset prices at high valuations while leaving central bankers short of ammunition to deal with a real crisis. There was no real crisis last year, a slowdown yes, but central bankers weren’t even willing to risk that, instead they went all in on the slowdown. It is this lack of backbone and co-dependency on markets that has left the world with less stimulus options for when they may be really needed. Reckless.”

Yes, central banks present a vastly greater threat to the economy than the coronavirus. Unfortunately, however, there never will be a vaccine that could immunise the economy from the effects of interest rate manipulation. Also, Sven is wrong when he writes that central bankers are short of ammunition and when he implies that stimulus options of the central planning kind will be needed at some point in the future. These options are always counter-productive and therefore never needed.

Central banks are a long way from being short of ammunition, because there effectively is no limit to the amount of money they can create. They can monetise (purchase with money created out of nothing) pretty much anything. At the moment they generally have restricted themselves to the monetisation of their own government’s debt, but they could expand their bond-buying to encompass investment-grade corporate debt and, if that wasn’t deemed sufficient, high-yield (junk) debt. They also could monetise equities, perhaps beginning with ETFs and working their way down to individual stocks. If they wanted, with a change of some arbitrary rules they could even monetise commercial and residential real estate.

It could be argued that “inflation” (in the popular sense the word: an increase in the so-called general price level) limits the amount of new money that central banks can create, in that after “inflation” starts being perceived as a major threat the central bank will come under irresistible political pressure to tighten the monetary reins. This is one of the tenets of the idiocy known as Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT for short. According to MMT, the government should be able to create out of thin air whatever money it needs, with the “inflation” rate being the only limitation. However, in some developed countries, including the US, many people already are having trouble making ends meet due to the rising cost of living, and yet the central bank claims that the “inflation” rate is too low and senior politicians agree.

As well as distorting price signals and thus getting in the way of economic progress, when the central bank makes long-term additions to its balance sheet it is, in effect, surreptitiously nationalising part of the economy. For example, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) already has nationalised Japan’s government bond market and is well on its way towards nationalising the market for ETFs (the BOJ owns about 80% of all ETF shares listed in Japan).

The creeping nationalisation of markets is something that is rarely, if ever, mentioned during discussions of current and potential monetary stimulus, but it’s a big problem that looks set to get even bigger.