Blog 2 Columns

Contrary to the opinions of some hard-money advocates, money should not be backed by gold. In fact, money should not be backed by anything.

Money is the most commonly used means of final payment in an economy. Consequently, something cannot be money (a means of FINAL payment) and at the same time be backed by something else, because in that case it’s the thing that does the backing that is actually money. For example, during the period in which the US was on a Gold Standard the US dollars in circulation were not money; they were receipts for money (gold). To put it another way, during the Gold Standard period the US dollars in circulation were not money backed by gold. Rather, gold was money.

Criticism of today’s money on the basis that it is not backed by anything therefore contains a fundamental misunderstanding of money. Money (the general medium of exchange) can be almost anything, but if something is money then it cannot, by definition, be ‘backed’ by something else.

On a related matter, the Gold Standard is not a good idea. This is because it necessarily involves the government fixing a price (the price of an ounce of gold or the price of a currency unit). When the government has the power to manage/control something in accordance with certain rules, the government will always be able to change the rules to suit itself. A successful attempt to return to a Gold Standard would therefore inevitably be followed by rule changes that led back to where we are today.

What would be a good idea is to get the government completely out of the money business.

This post is a slightly-modified excerpt from a recent TSI commentary.

The COT (Commitments of Traders) data for gold is portrayed by some commentators as an us-versus-them battle, with “them” (the bad guys) being the Commercials. Whether this is done out of ignorance or because it makes a good story that attracts readers/subscribers, it paints an inaccurate picture.

As I’ve explained in numerous TSI commentaries over the years, the Commercial position is effectively just the mathematical offset of the Speculative position. Speculators, as a group, cannot go net-long by X contracts unless Commercials, as a group, go net-short by X contracts. Furthermore, we can be sure that Speculators are the drivers of the process because most of the time the Speculative net-long position moves in the same direction as the price.

With Speculators becoming increasingly long as the price rises, it will always be the case that the Speculative net-long position will be near a short-term maximum when the price is near a short-term high. This means that the Commercial net-short position must always be near a short-term maximum when the price is near a short-term high, creating the false impression that the Commercials are always right at price tops.

The reality is that the Commercials are neither right nor wrong, since they generally don’t bet on price direction. In some cases they are selling-short the futures to hedge long positions in the physical, but in the gold market the dominant Commercials are the bullion banks that trade spreads between the physical and futures. If trading and other costs are low enough and volumes are high enough, the bullion banks can guarantee themselves profits — regardless of subsequent price direction — by buying/selling gold for future delivery and simultaneously selling/buying the physical metal.

Consider, for example, the situation where Speculators increase their collective demand for gold futures. If this additional Speculative demand causes the futures price to rise relative to the spot price it can create an opportunity for a bullion-bank Commercial to simultaneously sell the futures and buy the physical, thus locking-in a profit equal to the spread (between the futures price and the spot price) less the costs of storage, insurance and financing. At a time when the official interest rate is near zero, even a tiny futures-physical spread in the gold market can create the opportunity for a profitable trade.

I’m going back over this old ground to make sure that TSI readers aren’t taken-in by the popular, but wrongheaded, conspiracy-centric us-versus-them characterisation of the COT information.

A post at ZeroHedge (ZH) on 8th April discusses an 11th April Fed meeting as if it were an important and unusual event. According to the ZH post:

“With everyone’s focus sharply attuned on anything to do with the Fed’s rate hike policy, many will probably wonder why yesterday the Fed announced that this coming Monday, April 11, the Fed will hold a closed meeting “under expedited procedures” during which the Board of Governors will review and determine advance and discount rates charged by the Fed banks.

As a reminder, the last time the Fed held such a meeting was on November 21, less than a month before it launched its first rate hike in years.”

As explained at the TSI Blog last November in response to a similar ZH post, these “expedited, closed” Fed meetings happen with monotonous regularity. For example, there were 5 in March, 4 in February and 5 in January. Furthermore, ZH’s statement that 21 November was the last time the Fed held such a meeting to “review and determine advance and discount rates charged by the Fed banks” is an outright falsehood. The fact is that a meeting for this purpose happens at least once per month. For example, there were 2 such meetings in March and 1 in February.

Is it possible that the misinformation in the above-linked ZH post was an honest mistake? Yes, it’s possible, but it isn’t likely.

The most important fundamental driver of the gold market that hasn’t yet begun to move in a gold-bullish direction is the US yield curve, represented on the following chart by the 10yr-2yr yield spread. The yield curve is bullish for gold when it is getting steeper, as indicated by a rising 10yr-2yr yield spread (a rising line on the following chart). With the 10yr-2yr yield spread having recently made a new 8-year low and not yet shown any sign of reversing upward, the yield curve remains unequivocally gold-bearish.

The yield curve is also one of the most important economic indicators to not yet warn of a US recession. Note that contrary to popular opinion it isn’t an inversion of the yield curve (the 10yr-2yr yield spread dropping below zero) that warns of a recession, it’s a trend reversal from flattening to steepening after the yield-spread has fallen to a multi-year low.

Based on what happened over the past 50 years, a trend reversal in the yield spread is not a prerequisite for a gold bull market. As long as sufficient other fundamental drivers (e.g. credit spreads and the real interest rate) are gold-bullish it is possible for gold to commence a bull market in the absence of a supportive yield curve. This is exemplified by the bull market that began during 1976-1977. However, it would be unprecedented for a US recession to begin in the absence of an upward reversal in the 10-yr-2yr yield spread.

The 15th March Financial Times article that I rubbished in a blog post last week contained the comment: “the 1970s ‘Phillips Curve’ trade-off between unemployment and inflation is alive and well“. Unbeknownst to me at the time, since I never tune in to Federal Reserve press events, Fed chief Janet Yellen said almost exactly the same thing at the 17th March post-FOMC press conference. Specifically, she said: “The Phillips Curve is alive“, by which she meant the purported trade-off between general price inflation and unemployment (the idea that lower unemployment generally comes at the cost of higher inflation and lower inflation generally comes at the cost of higher unemployment) was becoming an important consideration. This statement reveals cluelessness in three different ways.

First, the Phillips Curve and the theory behind it does NOT suggest that there is a trade-off between unemployment and general price inflation. In fact, it says nothing whatsoever about the relationship between general price inflation and unemployment. The Phillips Curve is about the relationship between changes in REAL wages and changes in employment. It is basic supply-demand stuff. As explained by John Hussman back in 2011:

“Phillips demonstrated a principle that is well-known to every economist: very simply, when a useful resource becomes scarce, its price tends to increase relative to the prices of other goods and services. That finding doesn’t need all sorts of intellectual contortions or modeling tricks to make it “work,” because it is one of the most basic laws of economics.

The true Phillips Curve, then, is a relationship between unemployment and real wages. When workers are scarce, wages tend to rise faster than the general price level. When workers are plentiful, wages tend to rise slower than the general price level.”

Second, the empirical data clearly show that there is no consistent relationship between general price inflation and unemployment. The above-linked Hussman article includes the relevant evidence in chart form. That is, even if the misrepresentation and misuse of the Phillips Curve is put aside, no economist who has bothered to check the historical data could believe in the inflation-unemployment trade-off.

Third, any half-decent economist would realise that there is no basis under sound economic theory for there to be a trade-off between unemployment and “price inflation”. The simple reason is that economic progress, which usually leads to more opportunities for employment, results from increasing productivity and, all else being equal, would therefore tend to be associated with a falling, not a rising, general price level. That is, all else being equal there should be a positive correlation rather than a trade-off between unemployment and “price inflation”. Of course, in the real world all is not equal, first and foremost because the central bank is constantly manipulating prices. Based on the fatally flawed models to which they are committed, central banks try to curtail the decline in the general price level that would naturally stem from economic progress. In doing so they falsify the price signals upon which the market economy relies, thus creating greater inefficiency.

The nicest thing I can say about Janet Yellen is that she doesn’t appear to be as stupid and dangerous as Mario Draghi, although I’ll change my mind about that if she ends up taking the Fed down the negative-interest-rate path.

Jordan Roy-Byrne recently posted an interesting video discussing gold’s Commitments of Traders (COT) data. The video was a response to numerous articles warning that the COT situation was flashing a danger signal. I agree with Jordan’s interpretation, which is that the COT data are probably not predicting a large decline in the gold price.

The main point of the above-linked video is similar to a point I’ve made numerous times in TSI commentaries over the years. The point is that there are no absolute benchmarks when it comes to sentiment indicators in general and the COT situation in particular (the COT reports are nothing more than sentiment indicators). A level that constitutes an ‘overbought’ warning in a bear market will usually not be applicable in a bull market, in that during a multi-year bullish trend the market will tend to become more ‘overbought’ and stay ‘overbought’ for longer. Of particular relevance, the speculative net-long position in gold futures that coincides with a short-term price top will generally reach much higher levels during a bull market than during a bear market. In fact, by the time a bull market has been in progress for 2-3 years the levels that marked short-term ‘overbought’ extremes during the preceding bear market could now mark short-term ‘oversold’ extremes.

In other words, sentiment must be considered within the context of the long-term price trend.

Unfortunately, in the early part of a new long-term trend there is usually no way to know, for sure, that the trend has changed. In gold’s case there is evidence that a cyclical bull market has begun, but the evidence is not yet conclusive. That’s why it is prudent to take information such as the COT data at face value.

I view gold’s current COT situation, which is reflected on the following chart from Sharelynx.com, as a valid warning that short-term downside risk is at least as high as the remaining short-term upside potential. At the same time I realise that if gold has entered a new cyclical bull market then the speculative net-long position (the red bars on the chart) is going to get much larger within the coming two years.

Judging by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s 15th March article in the Financial Times, which rehashes the most popular economics-related fallacies of the 1970s, the answer to the above question is a resounding NO.

Here’s an excerpt from the article that neatly encapsulates the ideas that were widely believed by economists during the 1960s-1970s, that were shown to be false during the 1970s, and that are now apparently again accepted as true:

“Every major downturn since the First World War has been caused by the Fed, determined to snuff out inflation as the credit cycle matures. Expansions rarely die of old age. They are killed.

There may have been other factors in each historical episode — the oil shocks of the 1970s, or the first Gulf War in 1991 — but the Fed has been the determining catalyst each time.

Mr Fischer could hardly have been clearer. He spelled out why the 1970s ‘Phillips Curve’ trade-off between unemployment and inflation is alive and well, and an implicit warning that prices could soon take off since the labour market is clearly approaching the electric fence of Milton Friedman’s NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment).”

The fact is that the Fed does cause severe economic downturns, but not by tightening monetary policy. In the real world, every boom that occurs on the back of money-pumping and interest-rate suppression contains the seeds of its own destruction. The reason is that the falsification of prices resulting from the central bank’s efforts to stimulate economic activity leads to widespread malinvestment.

Once the malinvestment occurs, a painful period of adjustment becomes inevitable. As Mises explained about 100 years ago, the only question is whether the adjustment begins sooner as a consequence of deliberately slowing the pace of money-pumping or later as a consequence of a collapse in confidence in the money. Politicians naturally want the adjustment to happen later (after the next election or, best of all, on somebody else’s watch), but the later it happens the more painful it will be.

It seems that Keynesian economic theories have to be totally discredited every generation, because regardless of how wrongheaded they are proved to be they always make a spectacular comeback. Furthermore, it’s not like what’s now commonly known as Keynesian Economics was invented by J.M.Keynes. In essence, all Keynes did was give his name, stamp of approval and incomprehensible language to ideas that had been tried to disastrous effect as far back as ancient Roman times.

It’s not hard to understand why these wrongheaded ideas inevitably get revived. They always recapture their lost popularity because they sound good at the most superficial level (they can sound like a way to provide free lunches for all) and because they seem to provide governments with an excuse to expand their reach.

A “death cross” is when the 50-day moving average (MA) goes from above to below the 200-day MA. According to conventional wisdom death crosses are bearish, but they often occur near short-term price lows and therefore tend to be bullish.

For example, over the past 5 years the S&P500 Index (SPX) has experienced three death crosses. The first occurred near the August-2011 price bottom, which turned out to be a wonderful time to buy. The second occurred near the August-2015 price bottom, which was last year’s low. The third occurred near the low in January this year. I’ll be surprised if the January low turns out to be the 2016 low, but it was followed by a tradable rally.

A “golden cross” is when the 50-day moving average (MA) goes from below to above the 200-day MA. According to conventional wisdom golden crosses are bullish, but they often occur near short-term price highs and therefore have short-term bearish implications more than half the time.

For example, short-term tops in the gold price occurred near “golden crosses” in September-2012, March-2014 and July-2014. Also, it’s too soon to know for sure, but it seems that a golden cross marked a short-term top in the gold price during the first half of this month.

Death crosses tend to have short-term bullish implications because they often happen around the time that the market becomes stretched to the downside. Similarly, golden crosses regularly have short-term bearish implications because they often happen around the time that the market becomes stretched to the upside.