It is always possible to find evidence to support any market opinion. If you want to find evidence to support a bearish view, you will be able to find it. If you want to find evidence to support a bullish view, you will be able to find it. If it’s evidence of an impending economic collapse or financial crisis you desire, if you look hard enough you will be able to find it. At the same time you will be able to find evidence that the financial/economic future is bright, if that’s what you really want.

For example, someone wanting to paint a bearish picture of the US economy and stock market could choose to single-out the performance of Wal-Mart (WMT).

Whereas someone wanting to paint a bullish picture of the US economy and stock market could choose to focus on General Electric (GE).

This year’s performances of WMT and GE largely reflect company-specific issues, but they can still be used to support opposing overall-market views.

The point is that there are always two sides to any market. Regardless of your current view, you can be sure that there are many people who are just as smart or smarter than you who have the opposite view. You should therefore always entertain the possibility that your current outlook is wrong and be wary of commentators who only present one side of the story.

Also, it is important to recognise and account for your own biases. One way to do this is to go out of your way to read the analyses of people whose views contradict your own. For example, if, like me, you tend to be too bearish on the US stock market, then you should spend at least as much time reading bullish stock-market commentary as you spend reading bearish stock-market commentary.

In general, there’s nothing to be gained by fixating on market analysis that confirms what you already think you know.

My two “Gold Is Not Money” articles (HERE and HERE) provoked numerous disagreeing responses, the majority of which were polite and well-meaning. Despite presenting various arguments, these responses had one thing in common: they did not offer a practical definition of money that gold currently meets. As I mentioned previously, a practical definition of money cannot avoid the primary economic role of money, which is to facilitate indirect exchange*. If something is not generally used to facilitate indirect exchange, then regardless of what other attributes it has it cannot be money; at least not in the way that money is commonly understood today and has been commonly understood through the ages. When people willingly perform logical contortions in an effort to show that something is money even though it doesn’t fulfill the primary role of money, all they are actually showing is the lengths to which they are prepared to go to ignore a reality that is not to their liking. Would gold perform the monetary role far better than the US$ and any of the other monies in common use in the developed world today? Yes. Would I rather that gold was money today? Yes. Is gold money today? Unfortunately, no. However, the main purpose of this post isn’t to rehash the reasons that gold can no longer be correctly viewed as money in any developed economy. It’s to consider the claim, which was made by more than a few of the respondents to my “Gold Is Not Money” posts, that gold is an economic constant.

Such a claim ignores good economic theory. Gold, like all of the elements, is a physical constant, but there is no such thing as an economic constant or yardstick. The reason is that value is always subjective. Every individual will have his/her own opinion on what gold is worth and these opinions will change based on circumstances.

Currently, most people in the Western world own no gold and have no intention of buying gold. This will change, but the reality is that gold is presently very low on the ‘utility scale’ of the average person. At the same time, there are plenty of people who place a high value on gold, which is why gold’s price is what it is.

The market price at any time reflects the collection of all the differing opinions about value, but the market price is constantly changing. The market price, therefore, does not measure value in the way that the mass of a physical quantity can be measured.

The claim that gold is an economic constant also ignores the historical record. For example, there has been a large decline in gold’s purchasing-power (PP) over the past 4 years. Prior to that, there was a huge gain in gold’s PP during 2001-2011, a huge decline in gold’s PP from January-1980 through to early-2001, and a spectacular rise in gold’s PP during 1971-1980. Over the same period the dollar’s PP has been vastly more stable, although certainly far from constant.

It could be argued that the large swings in gold’s PP over the past 45 years are due to changes in the perception of the official monetary system. This is true — the perceived value of gold as an investment or a speculation or a vehicle for saving has undergone large oscillations over the past 45 years due to changing perceptions of the US$ (money in the US). These oscillations are secondary evidence that gold is no longer money in the world’s largest economy, the primary evidence being that it isn’t generally used as a medium of exchange.

It should also be understood that gold was not an economic constant even when it was money. In general terms, even the best money imaginable would not be an economic constant, because even if its supply were kept constant its demand would be continually changing. Again, we stress that there is no such thing as an economic constant (an UNCHANGING quantity against which everything else can be measured).

When gold was money neither its supply nor its demand were ever constant over what most people would consider to be a normal investment timeframe or holding period, although it still performed admirably in the monetary role. It would have performed even better — and its reputation would not have been unfairly tarnished — if fractional-reserve banking had not been permitted. Fractional-reserve banking was to blame for the financial crises that occasionally erupted during the Gold Standard era.

Over extremely long periods the swings in gold’s PP have evened-out in the past, but something that starts at a certain level and can be relied on to return to that level at some unknown point in the distant future cannot be legitimately called a “constant”. Moreover, to be useful as money it isn’t necessary that something maintain relatively stable purchasing power over centuries; it is necessary that it maintain relatively stable purchasing-power from one year to the next.

Something won’t survive as money if it tends to experience wild swings in its purchasing-power over periods of a few years or less, but it can survive as money if its PP can be relied on to change by no more than a few percent in either direction from one year to the next. There is no need for money to have constant PP to remain useful as money, which is just as well because economic constancy is an impossible dream.

*Here’s what I mean by “indirect exchange”. In an economy without money a tomato farmer who wanted bread would have to find a baker who wanted tomatoes. A direct exchange of ‘wants’ could then take place. However, in an economy with money a tomato farmer who wanted bread could sell his tomatoes to anyone in exchange for money and then use the money to buy bread. This is an indirect exchange of ‘wants’, with money providing the link.

Early last year I gave banking behemoth Goldman Sachs (GS) credit for looking in the right direction for clues regarding gold’s likely performance, which is something that most gold bulls were not doing. In November I again gave them credit, because, even though I doubted that the US$ gold price would get close to GS’s $1050/oz price target for 2014, their overall analysis had been more right than wrong. It was clear that up to that point the US economy had performed better than I had expected and roughly in line with the GS forecast, which was the main reason that gold had remained under pressure; albeit, not as much pressure as GS had anticipated.

But this year it was a different story. Here’s what I wrote in a TSI commentary in January-2015:

“This year, GS’s gold market analysis begins on the right track by stating that stronger US growth should support higher real US interest rates, which would be bearish for gold. Although we expect that the US economy will ‘tread water’ at best and that real US interest rates will be flat-to-lower over the course of this year, GS’s logic is correct. What we mean is that IF the US economy strengthens and IF real US interest rates trend upward in response, there will be irresistible downward pressure on the US$ gold price.

However, the analysis then goes off the rails. After mentioning something that matters (the real interest rate), the authors of the GS gold-market analysis then try to support their bearish case by listing factors that are either irrelevant or wrong. It actually seems as if they’ve taken the worst arguments routinely put forward by gold bulls and tried to use the same hopelessly flawed logic to support a bearish forecast.

For example, they argue that the demand for gold will fall because “inflation” levels are declining along with oil prices. They are therefore unaware, it seems, that “price inflation” has never been an important driver of the gold market and that the latest two multi-year gold rallies began with both “inflation” and inflation expectations low and in declining trends. They also appear to be unaware that the large decline in the oil price is very bullish for the gold-mining industry.

Their analysis then gets even worse, as they imply that the price weakness of the preceding three years is a reason to expect future weakness, whereas the opposite is closer to the truth. They go on to cite outflows from exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and reduced investment in gold coins as bearish influences, apparently unaware that the volume of gold coins traded in a year is always too small to have a noticeable effect on the price and that the change in ETF inventory is a follower, not a driver, of the gold price.

Finally, just when it seems as if their analysis can’t possibly go further off track, it does by asserting that lower jewellery demand and a greater amount of producer hedging will add to the downward pressure on the gold price. The facts are that jewellery demand has always been irrelevant to gold’s price trend and that gold producers are part of the ‘dumb money’ (meaning: they tend to add hedges at low prices and remove hedges at high prices, that is, they tend to do the opposite of what they should be doing based on gold’s intermediate-term risk/reward).”

I concluded by stating that in 2014 the GS analysts were close to being right for roughly the right reasons, but that in 2015 they could not possibly be right for the right reasons. They would either be right for the wrong reasons, or they would be wrong.

At this stage it looks like they are going to be wrong about 2015, but not dramatically so. My guess is that gold will end this year in the $1100-$1200 range, thus not meeting the expectations of GS and other high-profile bears and at the same time not meeting the expectations of the bulls. However, GS is on record as predicting a US$1000/oz or lower gold price for the end of next year. I think that this forecast will miss by a wide margin, but I’m not going to make a specific price forecast for end-2016. Anyone who thinks they can come up with a high-probability forecast of where gold will be trading 15 months from now is kidding themselves.

Officially, the US has a fractional-reserve banking system (as does almost every other country), meaning that a fraction of deposits are backed by cash reserves held in bank vaults or at the Fed. In reality, the US has a zero-reserve banking system.

I don’t mean that there are no reserves in the banking system, as currently there are huge reserves courtesy of the Fed’s QE programs. What I mean is that there is no relationship between bank reserves and bank lending and that bank reserves do not impose any limit on bank deposits. It has been this way for about 25 years.

To further explain, the most important aspect of a fractional reserve banking system is that a bank can create new deposits by lending out existing deposits up to the point where its total deposits are a predetermined multiple of its reserves. The aforementioned multiple is called the “money multiplier” and the maximum “money multiplier” is the reciprocal of the minimum reserve requirement. For example, in a system where a bank’s reserves are required to be at least 10% of its total deposits, the potential “money multiplier” is 10. In the current US system, however, there is effectively no lower limit on reserves, which means that the so-called “money multiplier” can correctly be thought of as either non-existent or infinite.

Regardless of their deposit levels, US banks are able to reduce their required reserve levels to zero. This is possible for two reasons. First, only demand deposits are subject to reserve requirements. Second, banks employ software that shuffles money between accounts to ensure that they fulfill the regulatory reserve requirement regardless of their actual deposit and reserve levels. For example, you might think you have a demand deposit, but for regulatory purposes what you might actually have is a zero-interest CD.

The absence of any relationship between US bank reserve levels and US bank credit is illustrated by the following chart. The chart compares total US bank credit and total bank reserves (vault cash plus reserves held at the Fed) from the beginning of 1989 through to mid-2008 (just prior to the start of the QE programs that swamped the normal relationships). During this period, bank credit shot up from $2,400B to $9,000B while total bank reserves oscillated between $50B and 65B. Notice that the volume of bank reserves was actually a little lower in 2008 with bank credit at $9.0T than in 1989 with bank credit at $2.4T.

An implication, even prior to the QE programs that inundated the banks with reserves, is that the US fractional-reserve banking system will never go into reverse due to a shortage of reserves. In other words, US banks will never contract their balance sheets due to a lack of reserves. Another implication is that having a huge pile of “excess” reserves will never cause banks to expand credit. Instead, regardless of their reserve levels banks will expand or contract credit to the extent that their overall balance sheets can support additional leverage and they can find willing/qualified borrowers.

I opened a blog post on 7th October with the statement that gold was money in the distant past and might again be money in the future, but isn’t money in any developed economy today. I then explained this statement. The post stirred up a veritable hornet’s nest, in that over the ensuing 24 hours my inbox was inundated with dozens of messages arguing that I was wrong and a couple of messages thanking me for pointing out the obvious (that gold is not money today). The negative responses were mostly polite*, but in many cases went off on a tangent. Rather than trying to respond individually, this post is my attempt to rebut or otherwise address some of the comments provoked by the earlier post on the same topic.

In general, the responders to my earlier “Gold Is Not Money” post made the same old mistakes of arguing that gold is an excellent long-term store of value, which is true but has nothing to do with whether gold is money today, or confusing what should be with what is. Some responders simply asserted that gold is money because…it is. Not a single responder provided a practical definition of money and explained how gold fit this definition. That’s despite my emphasis in the earlier post that before you can logically argue whether something is or isn’t money, you must first have a definition of money.

Due to the fact that many different things (salt, tally sticks, beads, shells, stones, gold, silver, whiskey, pieces of paper, etc.) have been money in the past, a reasonable definition of money MUST be based on money’s function. Also, the definition must be unique to money. In other words, when defining money you must start with the question: What function does money perform that nothing other than money performs?

“General medium of exchange”, meaning the general enabler of indirect exchange, is the function performed by money and only by money within a particular economy. Now, there are certainly pockets of the world in which gold and other items that we don’t normally use as money in our daily lives do, indeed, perform the monetary function. For example, there are prisons in which cigarettes are the most commonly-used medium of exchange. It is certainly fair to say that cigarettes are money within the confines of such a prison, but I want a definition that applies throughout the economy of a developed country. Gold is not money in the economy of any developed country today, although there could well be small communities in which gold is money.

I’ll now address some of the specific comments received in response to my earlier post, starting with the popular claim that there’s a difference between currency and money, and that although gold is no longer a currency it is still money. The line of thinking here appears to be that currency is the medium that changes hands to complete a transaction whereas money is some sort of esoteric concept. This is hardly a practical way of thinking about currency and money. Instead, it appears to be an attempt to avoid reality.

A more practical way of thinking about the difference between currency and money is that almost anything can be a currency whereas money is a very commonly-used currency. In other words, “currency” is a medium of exchange whereas “money” in the general medium of exchange. The fact is that gold is sometimes used as a currency, but it is currently not money.

Moving on, some people clearly believe that gold is money because the US Constitution says so. Actually, the US Constitution doesn’t say so, as the only mention of gold is in the section that limits the powers of states and is specifically about the payment of debts, but in any case this line of argument is just another example of confusing what should be with what is. The bulk of what the US Federal Government does these days is contrary to the intent of the Constitution.

Some people apparently believe that gold is money (or money is gold) because JP Morgan said so way back in 1912. My response is that JP Morgan was absolutely correct. When he made that statement gold was definitely money because at that time it was the general medium of exchange in the US. However, today’s monetary system bears almost no resemblance to the monetary system of 1912. For example, when JP Morgan said “Money is gold” the US was on a Gold Standard and the Federal Reserve didn’t exist.

Several people informed me that gold must be money because some central banks are buying it or holding it in large quantities. OK, does this mean that something is money if central banks are buying/holding it regardless of whether or not it is being used as money throughout the economy? If so, then Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBSs) must now be money in the US because the Fed has bought a huge pile of MBSs over the past few years, and T-Bonds must now be money throughout the world because most CBs hold a lot of T-Bonds. Obviously, something does not become money simply because CBs hold/buy it.

A similar mistake is to claim that gold must be money because major clearing houses accept gold as collateral. The fact is that the same clearing houses also accept the government bonds of most developed countries as collateral. General acceptance as collateral clearly does not make something money.

Lastly, some readers came back at us with the tired old claim that gold has intrinsic value whereas the US$ and the rest of today’s fiat currencies don’t. At the risk of seeming arrogant, you can only make such a claim if you are not well-versed in good economic theory. All value is subjective, which means that no value is “intrinsic”. Most people subjectively assign a high value to gold today, but they also subjectively assign a high value to the US$. In any case, even if the “intrinsic value” statement had merit it wouldn’t be a valid argument that gold is money.

In conclusion, gold is something that is widely perceived to have substantial value. Furthermore, good arguments can be made that its perceived value will be a lot higher in a few years’ time. However, it is currently not money.

*Those that weren’t polite have had the honour of being added to my “blocked senders” list.

Last week I wrote about the incorrect portrayal of the late-September spike in the Fed’s “Reverse Repo” (RRP) operations. Breathless commentary in some quarters had portrayed the RRP spike as an attempt by the Fed to ward-off a crisis, which didn’t make sense. One of the main reasons it didn’t make sense is that a reverse repo takes money OUT of the banking system and is therefore the opposite of what the Fed would be expected to do if it were trying to paper-over a financial problem.

I subsequently saw an article by Lee Adler that provides some more information about the RRP spike. If you are interested in the real reasons behind it then you should read the afore-linked article, but in summary it has to do with a “Fed stupid parlor trick and the temporary shortage of short term T-bills along with the resulting excess of cash.”

According to Mr. Adler: “The two salient facts are that the Fed regularly does two quarter end term repo operations that add to the end of quarter amounts outstanding. They are not a response to any market conditions. The Fed reveals in its FOMC meeting minutes and elsewhere that it instructs the NY Fed to conduct these quarter end operations. It has done so every quarter this year. The NY Fed posts a statement laying out the operations a few days in advance of the end of the quarter.”

I’ve indicated the quarter-end RRP spikes on the following chart. The latest quarterly spike was larger than the preceding three due to the fact that the weekly update of the Fed’s balance sheet happened to be published on the day after the end of the September quarter. Notice that the volume of outstanding RRPs plunged during the first week of the new quarter.

If the pattern continues then there will be another RRP spike during the final week of December, regardless of what’s happening in the financial world at the time.

Here’s an unmodified excerpt from a TSI commentary that was published a few days ago. It deals with something that has garnered more attention than it deserves and been wrongly interpreted in some quarters.

We’ve seen some excited commentary about the recent rise in the dollar volume of Reverse Repurchase (RRP) operations conducted by the Fed. Here’s a chart showing the increase in RRPs over the past few years and the dramatic spike that occurred during the final week of September (the latest week covered by the chart).

For the uninitiated, a reverse repurchase agreement is an open market operation in which the Fed sells a Treasury security to an eligible RRP counterparty with an agreement to repurchase that same security at a specified price at a specific time in the future. The difference between the sale price and the repurchase price, together with the length of time between the sale and purchase, implies a rate of interest paid by the Fed on the cash invested by the RRP counterparty. In short, it is a cash loan to the Fed that is collateralised by some of the Fed’s Treasury securities. The Fed receives some cash, the RRP counterparty receives some securities. Note that the Fed never actually needs to borrow money, but it sometimes does so as part of its efforts to control interest rates and money supply.

As mentioned above, the recent large spike in RRPs has caused some excitement. For example, some commentators have speculated that it signals an effort by the Fed to paper-over a major derivative blow-up. As is often the case in such matters, there are less entertaining but more plausible explanations.

We don’t pretend to know the exact reason(s) for the RRP spike, but here are some points that, taken together, go a long way towards explaining it:

1) The Fed recently enabled a much larger range of counterparties to participate in RRPs. Previously it was just primary dealers, but eligible participants now include GSEs, banks and money-market funds.

2) Reverse Repos involve a reduction in bank reserves, which means that the volume of RRPs is limited to some extent by the volume of reserves held at the Fed. Eight years ago the total volume of reserves at the Fed was almost zero, whereas today it is well over $2T. It could therefore make sense to consider the volume of RRPs relative to the volume of bank reserves.

The following chart does exactly that (it shows RRPs relative to total bank reserves at the Fed). Viewed in this way, the recent spike is a lot less dramatic.

3) Prior to this year RRPs were overnight transactions, but in March of 2015 the FOMC approved a resolution authorizing “Term RRP Operations” that span each quarter-end through January 29, 2016. The Fed has recently been ramping up its Term RRP Operations as part of an experiment related to ‘normalising’ monetary policy.

4) A reverse repo involves the participants parting with the most liquid of assets (cash) for a slightly less liquid asset (Treasury securities), so RRPs are NOT conducted with the aim of boosting financial-system ‘liquidity’. They actually remove liquidity from the financial system.

5) A corollary to point 4) is that because RRPs involve the temporary REMOVAL of money from the financial system, the Fed cannot possibly bail-out or support a bank (or the banking industry as a whole) via RRPs. In effect, a reverse repo is a form of monetary tightening. It is the opposite of “QE”.

6) The recent large increase in the volume of RRPs could be partly due to a temporary shortage of Treasury securities — a shortage that the Fed helped create via its QE and that the US Federal Government has exacerbated by reducing the supply of new securities in response to the closeness of its official “debt ceiling”. That is, the Fed could be using RRPs to alleviate a temporary shortage of government debt securities. However, we suspect that interest-rate arbitrage is playing a larger role, because the RRP participants are getting paid an interest rate that in today’s zero-interest world could look attractive.

7) Lending money to the Fed is the safest way to temporarily park large amounts of cash.

Gold was money in the distant past and it will probably be money in the distant future, but there is no developed economy in which gold is money today. In this post I’ll explain why.

People who argue that gold is money often confuse what should be with what is. They explain why gold-money would be vastly superior to any of today’s fiat currencies and their explanations are probably 100% correct, but they are sidestepping the issue. There is no doubt in my mind that gold is far better suited to being money than something that can be created at whim by commercial banks and central banks, but the fact is that gold is presently not money.

Part of confusing what should be with what is sometimes involves the claim that governments can’t determine what is and isn’t money. This is akin to someone claiming it can’t rain while standing in the middle of a rainstorm.

The hard reality is that governments routinely do many things that they shouldn’t be able to do. Governments shouldn’t be able to force people into slavery, but they sometimes do it. They call it conscription or the draft. Governments shouldn’t be able to steal, but they do it on a grand scale every day and call it taxation. Governments shouldn’t be able to monitor almost all financial transactions and most internet communications, but they do. They call it national security or keeping us safe from terrorists and drug traffickers. Governments, either directly or via their agents, shouldn’t be able to siphon away the purchasing-power of savings and wages, but they do it under the guise of economic stimulus. Governments shouldn’t be able to put obstacles in the way of peaceful, voluntary transactions, in the process greatly increasing the cost of doing business and thus reducing living standards, by they do it every day and call it regulation. One particular government (that of the US) shouldn’t be almost continuously intervening militarily in multiple countries around the world, but it is. They call it peace through strength or keeping the world safe for democracy.

So, please don’t insult my intelligence by asserting that governments don’t have the power to determine what is money!

Another common mistake made by people who argue that gold is money is to emphasise gold’s store-of-value (meaning: store of purchasing-power since value is subjective and therefore can’t be stored) quality. However, there are many things that have been good stores of value that obviously aren’t money, so acting as a store of value clearly isn’t the defining characteristic of money.

Which brings me to a critical point: Before you can logically argue whether something is or isn’t money, you must first have a definition of money. And since we are dealing with something that affects everyone, the definition must be practical and easily understood.

The only practical definition of money is: the general medium of exchange or a very commonly used means of payment within an economy. By this definition, gold is not money in any developed economy today. By this definition, the US$ is money in the US, the euro is money in the euro-zone, the Yen is money in Japan, the Australian dollar is money in Australia, etc.

Once something is the general medium of exchange it will generally be used as a unit of account. The unit-of-account function stems naturally from the medium-of-exchange function. Also, for something to be good money it should be a good long-term store of purchasing power, but, as noted above, being a good long-term store of purchasing power is clearly not the defining characteristic of money. Being a poor long-term store of purchasing power would almost certainly preclude something from being money in a free market, but we do not currently have a free market. Do not confuse what is with what should be!

Now, I acknowledge that it is possible to concoct definitions of money that lead to the conclusion that gold is money, but such definitions either aren’t practical, or are focused on a characteristic of gold that is shared by some obviously non-monetary assets, or are simply wrong.

In conclusion, if something is money then the average person will know it is money because he will be regularly using it as a medium of exchange in his daily life. In other words, money cannot be a secret to which only an elite group is privy. Gold is therefore not money at this time. If it were, we wouldn’t be in such a precarious economic situation.

So if gold isn’t money, then what is it? That’s an interesting question that warrants a separate post.

The US stock market successfully tests its low

I wrote in a TSI commentary published on Sunday that the S&P500 Index (SPX) appeared to have completed a successful test of its 24th August low early last week. This view meshed with the price action and the fact that by some measures, most notably the Investors Intelligence Bull/Bear Ratio, last week’s test occurred in parallel with extreme negativity.

More evidence of a successful test of the low emerged on Monday 5th October when the number of individual stocks making new 52-week lows collapsed while the number of individual stocks making new 52-week highs rose significantly on both the NYSE and the NASDAQ.

The SPX is now less than 1% from substantial resistance at 2000. I suspect that this resistance will cap the SPX’s rebound for now, but that it will be breached before year-end. Based on a number of long-term indicators, I also suspect that the July-September downturn was the first leg of a cyclical bear market and that several months of range-trading will be followed by a decline to well below the 24th August low.

The gold-mining indices are finally showing signs of strength

The gold-mining indices broke out to the upside last Friday. Furthermore, the breakout was solidified on Monday when the HUI/gold ratio closed decisively above its 40-day MA for the first time since April.

The breakout could still be a ‘head fake’, but it should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Kinross Gold (KGC), the most under-valued of the major gold producers, broke above the top of a well-defined intermediate-term price channel on Monday. Based on this price action my guess is that it will rise to around US$2.40 within the next three weeks.

Ben Bernanke, Master of Tautology

Former Fed chief Ben Bernanke has apparently argued that poor productivity has held back growth in the US. This is like arguing that growth has been held back by a lack of growth, since the ONLY way that per-capita economic growth can happen is via an increase in productivity.

As a run-of-the-mill Keynesian, Bernanke is clueless about how fudging interest-rate signals and creating money out of nothing make an economy less efficient. If he had a clue he’d be arguing that the Fed has held back growth in the US.

This post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary.

Excited talk of a silver shortage has made its annual reappearance. This talk is always based on anecdotal evidence of silver coins or small bars being difficult to obtain in some parts of the world via retail coin dealers. It never has anything to do with the overall supply situation.

Shortages of silver and gold in certain manufactured forms favoured by the public will periodically arise, often because of a sudden and unanticipated (by the mints) increase in the public’s demand for these items. Furthermore, the increase in the public’s demand is often a reaction to a sharp price decline, the reason being that in the immediate aftermath of a sharp price decline the metals will look cheap regardless of whether they are actually cheap based on the fundamental drivers of value.

These periodic shortages of bullion in some of the manufactured forms favoured by the public are not important considerations when assessing future price potential. The main reason is that the total volume of metal purchased by the public in such forms is a veritable drop in the market ocean. For example, the total worldwide volume of silver in coin form purchased by the public in a YEAR is less than the amount of silver that changes hands via the LBMA in an average trading DAY.

If gold continues to rally over the weeks ahead then silver will also rally. By the same token, if gold doesn’t rally over the weeks ahead then neither will silver. In other words, regardless of any anecdotal evidence of silver shortages at coin shops, silver’s short-term price trend will be determined by gold’s short-term price trend. Furthermore, if the gold price rises then the silver price will probably rise by a greater percentage, the reason being that the silver/gold ratio is close to a multi-decade low (implying: silver is very cheap relative to gold).

A final point worth making on this topic is that the claims of silver or gold shortages that periodically spring-up are not only misguided, they are dangerous. This relates to the fact that the most popular argument against gold and silver recapturing their monetary roles is that there isn’t enough of the stuff to go around. The gold and silver enthusiasts who cry “major shortage!” whenever it temporarily becomes difficult to buy coins from the local shop are therefore effectively supporting the case AGAINST the future use of gold and silver as money. You see, a critical characteristic of money is that obtaining it is always solely a question of price.

Comments on the following charts will be emailed to TSI subscribers.

1) Gold

2) The HUI

3) The Dollar Index

4) The S&P500 Index (SPX)

I last wrote about BitGold (XAU.V), which is now called Goldmoney, most recently in a blog post on 26th May. In the linked post I expanded on my view that the company had a great product from the perspective of customers, but a very over-priced stock. I concluded that at some unknowable future time the “it’s a great product with smart management therefore the stock should be bought at any price” bubble of enthusiasm would collide with the “it will always be a low-margin business and therefore deserves a low valuation” brick wall of reality. Although the stock price has since dropped about 20%, the valuation of the stock still appears to be extremely high considering the profit-generating potential of the underlying business. It is therefore fair to say that the bubble of enthusiasm hasn’t yet collided with the brick wall of reality.

Every month, Goldmoney reports what it calls “Key Performance Indicators” (KPIs) of its business. These KPIs seem impressive at first glance and seem to justify the stock’s market capitalisation. For example, the company reported that at the end of August it had C$1.5B of customer assets under management (AUM), an amount that is several times greater than its current market cap of C$235M (55M shares at C$4.27/share). However, unlike a mutual fund that charges a fee based on AUM, Goldmoney charges nothing to store its customers’ assets (gold bullion). This means that the larger the amount of Goldmoney’s AUM, the greater the net COST to the owners of the business (Goldmoney’s shareholders).

This is an important point. Based on Goldmoney’s current fee structure, it will always lose money on customers who use the service primarily for store-of-value purposes. Under the current monetary system this is where PayPal has a big advantage over Goldmoney. Nobody views their PayPal account as a long-term store of value, but many of Goldmoney’s customers view the service as a convenient way to store their physical gold. They don’t want to spend their gold, they want to save it.

Another KPI that looks impressive at first glance is “Transaction Volume”. For example, the company reported total transaction volume of C$47M for August. However, not all transactions attract fees and for the ones that do the fee is 1%. This means that the revenue to Goldmoney will always be less than 1% of the total transaction volume.

What’s important in assessing the stock’s valuation is the revenue to Goldmoney relative to its costs. This information is not presented in the company’s monthly KPI reports, but it is presented in the quarterly financial statements. Unfortunately, the latest quarterly statements aren’t useful because a major acquisition happened after the 30th June cutoff date. The next quarterly statements will be more informative, but we probably won’t get a good indication of Goldmoney’s real financial performance and earning potential until the December-quarter results are published early next year.

At this stage I don’t have enough information to value Goldmoney, although I suspect that ‘reasonable value’ is a long way below the current price. I’ll post some updated thoughts when I have a clearer view of what the stock is worth, which might not be until February next year. In the meantime I’ll stay away. I have no desire to own the stock and, despite the apparent valuation-related downside risk, no desire to short the stock.

I’ve placed a small bet (via put options) that the senior US stock indices will drop to test their 24th August lows by mid-October. At the same time I acknowledge the potential for a sharp move to the upside over the next 2-3 days in anticipation of and in reaction to the Fed’s 17th September interest-rate decision. That’s why my bearish bet is small.

The chart pattern of the S&P500 Index (SPX) suggests that there will be a sharp move over the days immediately ahead, although it doesn’t point to a particular direction. One possible outcome involves an upside breakout within the next two days from the contracting triangle drawn on the following chart and then a downward reversal. This is the near-term outcome that would confuse the greatest number of traders, which is why I favour it.

I never risk money on guesses about what any financial market is going to do over time periods as short as a few days, but it’s still fun to guess.

What I mean by the title of this post is that the central-bank tightening that almost always precedes an economic bust is never the cause of the bust. However, it’s a fact that economic busts are indirectly caused by policy mistakes, in that policy mistakes lead to artificial, credit-fueled booms. Once such a boom has been fostered, an ensuing and painful economic bust becomes unavoidable. The only question is: will the bust be short and sharp (the result if government and its agents stay out of the way) or drag on for more than a decade (the result if the government and its agents try to boost “aggregate demand”)?

The most commonly cited historical case of a policy mistake directly causing an economic bust is the Fed’s gentle tap on the monetary brake in 1937. This ‘tap’ was quickly followed by the resumption of the Great Depression, leading to the superficial conclusion that the 1937-1938 collapse in economic activity would never have happened if only the Fed had remained accommodative.

Let’s now take a look at what actually happened in 1937-1938 that could have caused the economic recovery of 1933-1936 to rapidly and completely disintegrate.

First, while commercial bank assets temporarily stopped growing in 1937, they didn’t contract. Commercial bank assets essentially flat-lined during 1937-1938 before resuming their upward trend in 1939.

Second, outstanding loans by US commercial banks were roughly the same in 1938 as they had been in 1936, so there was no widespread calling-in of existing loans. That is, there was no commercial-bank credit contraction to blame for the economic contraction.

Third, the volume of money held by the public was higher in 1937 than in 1936 and was roughly the same in 1938 as in 1937.

Fourth, M1 and M2 money supplies were roughly unchanged over 1937-1938, so there was no monetary contraction.

Fifth, the consolidated balance sheet of the Federal Reserve system was slightly larger in 1937 than in 1936 and significantly larger in 1938 than in 1937, so there was no genuine tightening of monetary conditions by the Fed at the time.

Sixth, an upward trend in commercial bank reserves that began in 1934 continued during 1937-1938.

Seventh, there were no increases in the interest rates set by the Fed during 1937-1938. In fact, there was a small CUT in the FRBNY’s discount rate in late-1937.

What, then, did the Fed do that supposedly caused one of the steepest economic downturns in US history? The answer is that it boosted commercial-bank reserve requirements.

All of which prompts the question: How did a 1937 increase in reserve requirements that didn’t even lead to a monetary or credit contraction possibly cause manufacturing activity to collapse and unemployment to skyrocket?

It’s a trick question, because the increase in reserve requirements clearly didn’t cause any such thing. The economic collapse of 1937-1938 happened because the recovery of 1933-1936 was not genuine, but was, instead, an artifact of increased government spending and other attempts to prop-up prices. The economy had never been permitted to fully eliminate the imbalances that arose during the late-1920s, so a return to the worst levels of the early-1930s was inevitable.

Many analysts are now worrying out loud that the Fed will repeat the so-called “mistake of 1937″, but the real problem is that the Fed and the government repeated the policy mistakes of the late-1920s and then repeated the policy mistakes of 1930-1936. The damage has been done and another economic bust is now unavoidable, regardless of what the Fed decides at this week’s meeting.

To paraphrase Jim Grant, gold’s perceived value in US$ terms is the reciprocal of confidence in the Fed and/or the US economy. That’s why the things I refer to as gold’s true fundamentals are measures of confidence in the Fed and/or the US economy. I’ve been covering these fundamental drivers of the gold price in TSI commentaries for about 15 years.

Note that I use the word “true” to distinguish the actual fundamental drivers of the gold price from the drivers that are regularly cited by the majority of gold-market analysts and commentators. According to many pontificators, gold’s fundamentals include the volume of gold being imported by China, the volume of gold being transferred out of the Shanghai Futures Exchange inventory, the amount of “registered” gold at the COMEX, India’s monsoon and wedding seasons, 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 aren’t true fundamental price drivers. At best, they are distractions.

In no particular order, the gold market’s five most important fundamental drivers are the real interest rate, the yield curve, credit spreads, the relative strength of the banking sector, and the US dollar’s exchange rate.

Over the past 2 years gold’s true fundamentals have usually been mixed, meaning neither clearly bullish nor clearly bearish. What has tended to happen during this period is that when one of the fundamentals has moved decisively in one direction it has been counteracted by a move in the opposite direction by one of the others. For example, when credit spreads began to widen (gold-bullish) in mid-2014, the flattening of the yield curve (gold-bearish) accelerated. For another example, when the yield curve reversed direction and began to steepen (gold-bullish) in January of this year, the real interest rate turned upward (gold-bearish) and the banking sector began to strengthen relative to the broad stock market (gold-bearish).

Charts illustrating the performances over the past 5 years of the first four of the above-mentioned fundamental drivers of the gold market are displayed below. The first chart shows that the 10-year TIPS yield, a proxy for the real US interest rate, made a 2-year low in April of this year but has since moved to a 1-year high and into the top third of its 2-year range. This is bearish for gold. The second chart shows that a proxy for US credit spreads has been working its way upward since mid-2014 and recently broke to a new 2-year high. This is bullish for gold. The third chart shows that the US yield curve began to steepen in January, which is bullish for gold, but its performance over the past two months casts doubt as to this driver’s current message. And the fourth chart shows that after being relatively weak from July-2013 through to January-2015, the bank sector suddenly became relatively strong early this year. This driver has therefore shifted from gold-bullish to gold-bearish.

The overall picture painted by these charts is that gold’s fundamentals are still mixed, although there is perhaps a slight bearish skew due to the new 12-month high in the real interest rate. I’m anticipating a shift towards a more gold-bullish fundamental backdrop, but it hasn’t happened yet.

This post was inspired by an exchange between Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics and one of his readers. In an earlier blog entry Mr. Armstrong wrote: “The wealth of a nation is the total productivity of its people. If I have gold and want you to fix my house, I give you the gold for your labor. Thus, your wealth is your labor, and the gold is merely a medium of exchange. So it does not matter whatever the medium of exchange might be.” One of his readers took exception to this comment and argued that money should be tangible and ideally should be gold or silver.

Mr. Armstrong’s reply is worth reading in full. After giving us an abbreviated history of money through the ages, he sums up as follows:

“Paper money is the medium of exchange between two people where one offers a service or something they manufactured, which is no different than a gold or silver coin requiring CONFIDENCE and an agreed value at that moment of exchange. You can no more eat paper money to survive than you can gold or silver. All require CONFIDENCE of a third party accepting it in exchange. For the medium of exchange to be truly TANGIBLE it must have a practical utilitarian value and that historically is the distinction of a barter system vs. post-Bronze Age REPRESENTATIVE/INTANGIBLE based monetary systems predicated upon CONFIDENCE.”

I agree with Mr. Armstrong’s central point. Many gold advocates assert that gold is “real wealth” and has intrinsic value, which is patently wrong. Value is subjective and will change based on circumstances. For example, you might place a high value on gold in your current circumstances, but if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue then gold would probably have no value to you. Gold has exactly the same intrinsic value as a Federal Reserve note: zero.

However, he is very wrong when he states: “…it does not matter whatever the medium of exchange might be.” On the contrary, it matters more than almost anything in economics!

The problem with today’s monetary system isn’t that the general medium of exchange (money) has no intrinsic value. As noted above, money also had no intrinsic value when it was gold. The problem with today’s monetary system is that an unholy alliance of banks and government has near-total control of money. Banks have the power to create new money at whim, as does the government via the central bank.

Aside from the comparatively minor problem of causing the purchasing power of money to erode over time, the creation of money out of nothing by commercial banks and central banks distorts the relative-price signals that guide investment. This happens because the money enters the economy in a non-uniform way. In the US over the past several years, for example, most new money entered the economy via Primary Dealers who used it to purchase financial assets from other large speculators. The stock and bond markets were therefore the first and biggest beneficiaries of the new money, which led to an abnormally-large proportion of investment being directed towards strategies designed to profit from rising equity prices and low/falling interest rates. Such investment generally doesn’t add anything to the productive capacity of the economy. In fact, it often results in capital consumption.

Instead of saying “it does not matter whatever the medium of exchange might be”, what Mr. Armstrong should have said was: it does not matter whatever the medium of exchange might be, as long as it is chosen by the free market. Putting it another way, the government should stay out of the money business.

Here’s the wrong way to think about gold supply: “Although gold’s aboveground inventory is huge compared to current production, only a tiny fraction of this gold will usually be available for sale near the current price. Therefore, changes in mine supply can be important influences on the gold price.” I’ll now explain the right way to think about gold supply.

Whenever I point out that the supply side of the gold market consists of the entire aboveground gold inventory, which is probably somewhere between 150K tonnes and 200K tonnes, and that the gold-mining industry does no more than add about 1.5%/year to this inventory, an objection I often get is that only a tiny fraction of the aboveground inventory is available for sale at any time. This is of course true, and nobody who has a correct understanding of gold supply has ever claimed otherwise.

If all, or even most, of the aboveground supply were for sale at the current price then the price would not be able to rise. The price can rise and fall by substantial amounts, however, because there is always a huge range of prices at which the owners of the aboveground supply are prepared to sell. Moreover, this range is constantly changing based on changing personal circumstances and assessments of the market. In addition, some holders of existing aboveground gold will be planning to hold forever. These plans, which are themselves subject to change in response to changing circumstances, also factor into the formation of the gold price, in that a decision to withhold X ounces of supply can have a similar effect to a decision to buy X ounces.

As I write, gold is trading in the $1120s. It is therefore certain that a tiny fraction of the aboveground supply is currently changing hands in the $1120s and that there are plans in place to sell other tiny fractions in the $1130s, the $1140s, the $1150s, and all the way up to some extremely high number. Some people will also have plans to sell gold if the gold price falls below a particular level and there will be millions of people who have no specific selling intentions who will decide to sell in the future for some currently unforeseeable reason. At the same time there will be countless plans in place to buy at certain levels and millions of people with no present intention to buy who will, for reasons that aren’t currently foreseeable, decide to buy in the future.

It is the combination of these myriad plans that determines the price. Furthermore and as mentioned above, over the days ahead many of these plans will change. For example, some gold-buying/selling intentions will change based on what happens to the stock market or the bond market.

How does the gold-mining industry fit into the situation?

The gold-mining industry is not materially different from any other seller except that its plans are not price sensitive. Specifically, every year it will sell an amount that’s equivalent to about 1.5% of the total aboveground supply regardless of price. At this time four years ago it was selling gold in the $1800s and it is now selling roughly the same amount of gold in the $1100s. It is the ultimate price-taker. To put it another way: whatever price arises from the changing plans of gold owners and potential owners, that’s the price at which gold producers will sell.

On a related matter, due to the huge existing aboveground supply of gold there should never be a genuine shortage of physical gold. Obtaining more gold should always be solely a question price. A consequence is that the gold market should never go into “backwardation”, that is, the spot gold price should always be lower than the price for future delivery. Just to be clear: in an abundantly-supplied commodity market the futures price should be higher than the spot price by enough to eliminate the risk-free profit that could otherwise be had by selling the physical and buying the futures. That’s why it would be very significant if the gold market were to make a sustained and sizeable move into backwardation. Such a development would indicate that holders of the aboveground supply were withdrawing their gold from the market en masse and/or that the gold futures market was breaking down due a collapse in trust. Even the small and brief backwardations of the past two years have some significance*, although recent gold backwardation episodes have more to do with near-zero short-term US$ interest rates than gold supply/demand. The point is that gold backwardation is only important because the existing aboveground supply in saleable form dwarfs the rate of annual production.

In summary, the price of gold is where it is because of the range of prices at which existing holders intend to become sellers and the concurrent range of prices at which potential future holders intend to become buyers. These ranges are constantly in flux due to changing perceptions and circumstances.

*Keith Weiner has written extensively about the significance of gold backwardation at https://monetary-metals.com/.

Here is an excerpt from a commentary posted at TSI on 30th August:

During bull-market years and bear-market years, it is not uncommon for the US stock market to experience a quick decline of 10% or more at some point. For example, there was at least one quick decline of 10% or more in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. In other words, 15 out of the 19 years from 1994 to 2012, inclusive, had quick declines of 10% or more. Only two of these years (2001 and 2008) had declines that could reasonably be called crashes.

The periods from mid-2003 through to early-2007 and late-2012 through to mid-2015 were unusual because they did NOT contain any quick 10%+ declines. In other words, the 12.5% decline in the S&P500 Index (SPX) from its July peak to last Monday’s low was not extraordinary in an historical context, it only seemed extraordinary because the market had gone an unusually long time without experiencing such a decline. That is, it only seemed extraordinary due to “recency bias” (the tendency to think that trends and patterns we observe in the recent past will continue in the future). Furthermore and as noted in the email sent to subscribers late last week, this year’s July-August decline was significantly smaller than the July-August decline that formed part of a bull-market correction in 2011.

In summary, what happened over the past few weeks was not a crash by any reasonable definition of the word and was only extraordinary in the context of the unusually long period of low volatility that preceded it.

That being said, the recent market action could well have longer-term significance. Just as the sudden increase in volatility in 2007 following a multi-year period of exceptionally-low volatility marked the end of a cyclical bull market, the sudden increase in volatility over the past few weeks could be marking the end of a cyclical bull market. In fact, there is a better-than-even-money chance that this is the case.

Also, while the recent quick decline doesn’t meet a reasonable definition of a stock-market crash, it could be part of a developing crash pattern. Recall from previous TSI commentaries that a US stock-market crash pattern involves an initial sharp decline in the 7%-15% range (step 1) followed by a rebound that retraces at least 50% of the initial decline (step 2) and then a drop back to support defined by the low of the initial decline (step 3). A breach of support can then result in a crash. Step 1 of a potential crash pattern is complete and step 2 is now very close to being complete. Note, however, that even if steps 2 and 3 are completed over the next couple of weeks the probability of a crash will still be low, albeit much higher than it was a few weeks ago.

After China’s government announced a small reduction in the Yuan’s foreign exchange (FX) value early last month, US Presidential aspirant Donald Trump immediately leapt onto the nearest available podium and exclaimed:

“They [the Chinese] continuously cut their currency. They devalue their currency. And I have been saying this for years. They have been doing this for years. This isn’t just starting. This was the largest devaluation they have had in two decades. They make it impossible for our businesses, our companies to compete. They think we’re run by a bunch of idiots. And what’s going on with China is unbelievable, the largest devaluation in two decades. It’s honestly…a disgrace.”

The fact is that even after its recent “devaluation”, relative to the US$ the Yuan is up by 8% over the past 5 years and 30% over the past 10 years. Here’s a chart showing the performance (a rising line on this chart indicates a strengthening of the Yuan relative to the US$). Take a look at this chart and then re-read the above Trump comments.

Is Trump really that poorly informed about what’s going on? Perhaps, but probably not. It’s clear that Trump has become the consummate populist — someone who is willing to say anything that he thinks will strike a chord with a large mass of voters, even if he knows that what he is saying is complete nonsense.

In the case of China’s so-called devaluation, however, it isn’t just bombastic billionaires with a lust for political power who have misrepresented the situation. Anyone who has claimed that the Yuan’s devaluation was primarily about boosting exports has a poor understanding.

The reality is that the Yuan is very over-valued and has begun to fall under the weight of this over-valuation. Furthermore, rather than deliberately devaluing the Yuan, as part of its effort to maintain the semblance of stability China’s government has actually been trying to prevent the Yuan from devaluing. This can be deduced from the fact that China’s government has been selling-down its FX reserves (selling reserve-currency (mostly US$) assets and buying the Yuan puts upward pressure on the Yuan’s relative value). However, trying to prop-up the exchange rate via the selling of FX reserves and the simultaneous buying of the local currency is a form of monetary tightening, which, according to the fatally-flawed Keynesian theories that guide policymakers the world over, is the last thing that China’s economy needs right now.

Faced with the choice of keeping the Yuan’s FX value at an unrealistically high level via a form of monetary tightening or allowing the currency to start falling under the weight of its own over-valuation, China’s policymakers opted for the latter. Actually, they didn’t have much of a choice.

The following charts are referenced in an email to TSI subscribers.