[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary at www.speculative-investor.com]

We generally don’t engage in unprovable/unfalsifiable conspiracy-linked speculation to explain market performance or government policy, but today we are making an exception because we are struggling to come up with a more straightforward explanation for Trump’s recent actions.

Tariffs would be negative for the US economy even if they were not large in percentage terms and were introduced in a measured way, but the haphazard way in which large tariffs have been imposed and changed over the past two months greatly magnifies the economic damage that will be done. Furthermore, another intervention under consideration could be even more damaging than the tariffs that have been threatened/implemented to date. We are referring to the port fee plan discussed in an article posted at lloydslist.com on 11th March. Here is an excerpt:

“The US Trade Representative announced on February 21 that it plans to levy exorbitant port fees — in some cases over a million dollars — for every US port call by Chinese transport operators, Chinese-built ships, all operators that have any ships on order at Chinese yards, and according to one interpretation of the proposal (based on a presidential draft order obtained by Lloyd’s List), all operators with any Chinese-built ships in their fleets.

The USTR plan would also mandate that a portion of US exports be carried on US-flagged and, eventually, US-built vessels.

Respondents had until Monday to submit comments to the USTR if they wanted to testify at the hearing on the proposal on March 24. They responded in droves, overwhelmingly negatively, with several predicting a disaster for importers, exporters and the US economy in general if the USTR did not kill the port fee plan.

Some executives also bluntly asserted that if the plan was approved as written, their companies would go out of business or leave the US.”

If the port fee plan is implemented it will inflict a devastating blow on the US economy, with no potential upside in either the short-term or the long-term. Why, then, is it even being considered?

The port fee plan and the reckless way in which tariffs are being imposed/threatened only make sense if the Trump Administration is trying to ensure that the US economy goes into recession soon. If this is the plan then there is already evidence of success, in that the High Yield Index Option Adjusted Spread (HYIOAS), an indicator of US credit spreads, generated a recession warning signal last week. The signal is the weekly close above the 65-week MA (the blue line on the following chart).

Why on earth would the Trump team want a recession to happen ASAP?

One reason is that a recession this year could be blamed on Biden. In a way this would be appropriate, because the US economy probably would have gone into recession 12-18 months ago if not for the Biden Administration’s use of aggressive deficit-spending and other tools (mainly, issuing a higher percentage of short-term debt as mentioned below) to delay the inevitable until after the November-2024 elections.

Another reason is that a recession would create a financial/economic backdrop in which there was much greater demand for Treasury securities, enabling the US Treasury to ‘term out’ the government’s debt at lower interest rates. By way of further explanation, during 2023-2024 the US Treasury under Janet Yellen substantially increased the use of short-term debt to finance the government’s deficit and in doing so reduced the average term of the total debt. The new Treasury Secretary (Scott Bessent) must now return the average term of the debt to where it should be, which only could be done by increasing the issuance of long-term debt relative to the issuance of short-term debt. This would put upward pressure on long-term interest rates, but if there were a recession then this pressure probably would be more than offset by an increase in the demand for the relative safety provided by long-dated Treasury securities.

A third reason is that if a recession occurs this year, then the economy probably will look fine by the time the mid-term elections roll around in late-2026.

There’s now a high probability that if a US recession is not already underway then it will begin within the next three months. Therefore, if this is happening according to a plan to get the inevitable recession out of the way in 2025, then the first part of the plan is coming together.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary at www.speculative-investor.com]

We haven’t discussed global monetary inflation for a while, mainly because very little was happening and what was happening was having minimal effect on asset prices or economic performance. However, the global money-supply situation is now noteworthy.

First of all, attempts to reflate clearly are being made in some parts of the world. From our perspective, the most significant of these attempts are evident in the following monthly charts showing the monetary inflation rates in Australia and Canada. In both cases, year-over-year (YOY) money-supply growth rates have rebounded strongly from negative territory (monetary deflation territory, that is) to around 7%. These rebounds are setting the scene for economic booms, but we suspect that the booms won’t start until next year and that in the meantime there will be more economic weakness.

However, in the world’s most influential economies/regions there is no evidence, yet, that a concerted attempt to reflate is underway. In particular:

1. The following charts show that although the money-supply growth rates of both the US and the euro-zone have rebounded from the deep deflationary levels of 2023, the current levels (around 2%) are very low by historical standards. The current levels have tended to be associated with recessions and/or credit crises, not booms.

2. The next chart shows that while China’s YOY M2 growth rate remains moderately high by Western standards, it is near a multi-decade low. This means that the monetary stimulus introduced last September in China is yet to have a discernible effect on monetary conditions.

By the way, normally we show China’s M1 growth rate rather than its M2 growth rate, but the PBOC changed its M1 calculation methodology in January-2025 and in doing so made comparisons with previous months/years impossible. As far as we can tell, China’s M1 is roughly unchanged over the past year.

3. Our final chart shows that Japan’s YOY M2 growth rate is near an 18-year low, so the BOJ’s concern about price inflation in Japan is leading to tight monetary conditions. These tight monetary conditions probably will lead to economic weakness, much lower price inflation levels and additional Yen strength over the next 12 months, prompting the BOJ to return to its pro-inflation ways. Like all central banks, the BOJ is adjusting monetary policy based on what it sees in the rearview mirror.

The combination of the malinvestment that occurred in response to the massive monetary inflation of 2020-2022 and the current low levels of monetary inflation in the world’s most important economies increases the risk that the world is heading towards a period of widespread economic weakness.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary at www.speculative-investor.com]

The official US gold reserve is 260M ounces and is an asset on the balance sheet of the Fed. Currently the asset is valued at $11B, which equates to only US$42.22/ounce, whereas the actual market value of the asset is around US$770B. There recently has been speculation that the asset would be re-priced to reflect its current market value. What is the chance of this happening and what would be the likely effects? We will deal with the second part of this question first.

If the value of the asset on the Fed’s balance sheet were increased by US$750B, the re-valuation would, we assume, result in the Fed adding $750B to the Treasury General Account (TGA — the federal government’s demand account at the Fed). In effect, the Fed would be creating 750 billion new dollars that the government could spend. Therefore, the revaluation immediately would increase the US money supply by $750B. In addition, as the money was spent by the government, that is, as the money made its way from the Fed to the commercial banks, it would boost bank reserves.

The monetary injection into the economy that would occur as the government spent its newly acquired 750 billion dollars would give the economy a short-term boost. This means that if the revaluation were to happen within the next couple of months it could postpone a recession and provide some support to the stock market. It would not, however, be bullish for gold, unless gold is now a pro-cyclical asset.

Although the initial effect on the economy would be positive, the economic boost would be of a short-term nature only. One reason is that it would result in higher inflation and therefore higher long-term interest rates. A related reason is that it would prompt the Fed to extend its QT in order to absorb the additional money and reserves created by the revaluation.

Due to the short-term nature of any positive effect on the economy, from a purely political perspective it would make more sense to implement the revaluation during the final year of the Presidential term (2028, that is) rather than during the first year. This suggests to us that the probability of the revaluation happening this year is low. Furthermore, in an interview last Thursday (20th February) Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary, stated that revaluing the official gold reserve was not what he had in mind when he recently mentioned the possibility of monetising the balance sheet, although he wouldn’t be drawn on whether revaluing the gold was under consideration.

We suspect that if the official US gold reserve is revalued it will happen as part of a stimulus package during the next recession or it will be done to give the economy a short-term boost during the lead-up to the next Presidential election. It’s not likely to happen within the next few months.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary published last week at www.speculative-investor.com]

The war between Russia and the NATO-supported Ukraine that began almost exactly three years ago with Russia’s invasion of its neighbour, is one of the more stupid and unnecessary wars of the past century involving the US and/or Europe. It’s likely that this war never would have begun had there been formal acceptance on the parts of the major Western powers that Ukraine would remain neutral, that is, that Ukraine would never be part of NATO. Instead, the push to make Ukraine part of NATO that began in 2008 continued, with the result that millions of Ukrainians have been killed or lost their homes and a lot of Ukraine’s infrastructure has been destroyed. With negotiations now underway between the US and Russia governments, what are the chances that this unnecessary and devastating conflict will end within the next few months?

The short answer is that we can’t quantify the chances, but it’s clear that while it won’t be easy to arrive at a settlement there are strong incentives for both sides to end the fighting. The incentives for Ukraine and NATO are:

1) Stop the loss of Ukrainian lives and property.

2) End the costly transfer of military support to Ukraine — support that is achieving nothing other than prolonging the agony.

3) Prevent Russia from gaining more of Ukraine than it already has, the reality being that the longer the war goes on the more Ukrainian territory will be lost and the closer Ukraine will be to a complete military collapse.

4) Prevent Russia from becoming a bigger military threat to Europe. A large part of the official justification for NATO’s involvement in the war was to prevent Russia from threatening other parts of Europe, but at the outset of the war it was clear that Russia posed no military threat whatsoever to NATO. This was evidenced by the incompetence demonstrated by Russia’s armed forces during the first six months of the war. However, one of the unintended and ironic consequences of this war is that it has resulted in Russia’s military becoming much larger and more capable than it was, that is, it has resulted in Russia becoming a much bigger threat than it otherwise would have been. Furthermore, it’s likely that the longer the war continues, the stronger Russia will become militarily.

5) For the Trump Administration, there is the incentive of making good on a campaign promise and the fact that if the war were to continue beyond this year it would become as much Trump’s war as Biden’s war.

The Russian government also has incentives to bring the fighting to an end. They are:

1) End the massive transfer of resources from the broad economy to the war effort. Although Russia’s government has taken steps to keep a lot of the war-related costs off its own books, the war is creating major problems for the Russian economy. The most visible of these problems is rapid price inflation, which is causing the central bank to maintain its targeted interest rate at 21%. The longer the war goes on, the greater will be the wealth destruction within Russia. Putin almost certainly realises this.

2) End the sanctions that are making it more costly for Russian companies to export and limiting Russians’ access to imports.

3) Reduce the political risk for the current leadership. The longer the war goes on and the more distorted Russia’s economy becomes as a result, the greater the risk to Putin.

The incentives are there, but ending the war still will be difficult because the only deal that will be possible now will be worse, from a Ukrainian/Western perspective, than the deal that was rejected by Ukraine, at the behest of the US and the UK, a month after the war started. Increasing the degree of difficulty is that the bulk of the analysis of the war disseminated by the Western media is unrealistic. According to much of what is seen/read in the West, if ‘we’ can keep the costly military support for Ukraine going for a little longer, then Russia may be defeated. If not, then the Russian expansion won’t stop with Ukraine.

For the West, we think that being realistic involves accepting that:

1) Ukraine will never become part of NATO.

2) There will be no NATO ‘peacekeeping’ troops in Ukraine.

3) Most of the Ukrainian territory that has been taken by Russia up to now will stay with Russia.

And for Russia, we think that being realistic mainly involves accepting that Ukraine, as an independent country, will be free to elect its own government and maintain its own military. Also, although Russia will not accept Ukraine being in NATO, it may have to accept Ukraine being in the EU.

Hopefully the war, and along with it the bloodshed and destruction, will end within the next few months. Shortly after it does end, the rebuilding of Ukraine will begin. The rebuilding effort will, we think, be bullish for most industrial commodities.