Here are ten basic gold-market realities that are either unknown or ignored by many gold ‘experts’.

1. Supply always equals demand, with the price changing to maintain the equivalence. In this respect the gold market is no different from any other market that clears, but it’s incredible how often comments like “demand is increasing relative to supply” appear in gold-related articles.

2. The supply of gold is the total aboveground gold inventory, which is currently somewhere in the 150K-200K tonne range. Mining’s contribution is to increase the aboveground inventory by about 1.5% each year. An implication is that there should never be a shortage of gold.

3. Although supply always equals demand, the price of gold moves due to sellers being more motivated than buyers or the other way around. Moreover, the change in price is the only reliable indicator of whether the demand side (the buyers) or the supply side (the sellers) have the greater urgency. An implication is that if the price declines over a period then we know, with 100% certainty, that during this period sellers were more motivated (had greater urgency) than buyers.

4. No useful information about past or future price movements can be obtained by counting-up the amount of gold bought/sold in different parts of the gold market or different parts of the world. An implication is that the supply/demand analyses put out by GFMS and used by the World Gold Council are generally useless in terms of explaining past price moves and assessing future price prospects.

5. Demand for physical gold cannot be satisfied by “paper gold”.

6. Prices in the physical and paper (futures) markets are linked by arbitrage trading. For example, if speculative selling in the futures market drives the futures price down relative to the physical (or cash) price by a sufficient amount then arbitrage traders will profit by selling the physical and buying the futures, and if speculative buying in the futures market drives the futures price up relative to the physical (or cash) price by a sufficient amount then arbitrage traders will profit by selling the futures and buying the physical.

7. The change in the spread between the cash price and the futures price is the only reliable indicator of whether a price change was driven by the cash/physical market or the paper/futures market.

8. In a world where US$ interest rates are much lower than usual, the difference between the price of gold in the cash market and the price of gold for future delivery will usually be much smaller than usual. In particular, when the T-Bill yield is close to zero, as is the case today, there will typically be very little difference between the spot price of gold and the price for delivery in a few months. An implication is that in the current financial environment the occasional drift by gold into “backwardation” (the futures price lower than the spot price) will not be anywhere near as significant as it would be under more normal interest-rate conditions.

9. Major trends in the US$ gold price are determined by changes in the general level of confidence in the Fed and the US economy. An implication is that major price trends have nothing to do with changes in jewellery demand, mine supply, scrap supply, central bank buying/selling, and the amounts of gold being imported by India and China.

10. The amount of gold in COMEX warehouses and the inventories of gold ETFs follow the major price trend, meaning that changes in these high-profile inventories are effects, not causes, of changes in the gold price.

Commentators on the financial markets often make statements like “it’s a bull market” and “the trend is up” as if these were indisputable facts, but such statements are always opinions.

A statement of fact could reasonably be phrased along the lines of “the market was in an upward trend between date X and date Y”, because if a sequence of rising lows and rising highs occurred between two dates then the trend was, by definition, up during that period. However, it is impossible to know the direction of a market’s current price trend with absolute certainty, let alone the direction of its future price trend. The reason is that even if a market has just made a new high/low there will be some chance that this will turn out to be the ultimate high/low.

For example, it’s a fact that gold was in a bear market in US$ terms from its peak in September of 2011 through to 24th July 2015 (when it hit a 4-year low of $1072), but it is a matter of opinion as to whether gold is now in a bear market. The bear market could obviously still be in progress, but there is also a possibility that it ended on 24th July 2015. At the time of writing, nobody knows for sure.

Some market participants and commentators will draw a line on a chart and then make a statement such as “I will consider the trend to be up (or down) unless the market proves otherwise by moving below (or above) my line”. Fine, but there’s a big difference between claiming to know the direction of the price trend and working under the assumption that the trend is in a particular direction unless/until proven otherwise by some predetermined event. The valley of shattered financial dreams is littered with traders who were determined to stay ‘long’ or ‘short’ because they thought they KNEW the direction of the price trend.

The impossibility of knowing whether a bull/bear market or an up/down trend is going to continue, or even whether the market is currently in bull or bear mode, makes risk management essential. Someone who knew the future would never have to bother with risk management; they could, instead, risk everything on a particular outcome because for them it wouldn’t be a risk at all. But ordinary mortals always face a degree of uncertainty when making investment decisions and, as a result, always need to face the reality that these decisions could prove to be wrong. Be wary, then, of advisors who claim that there is only one possible direction for the future price of an investment.

But while unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong is a defect in the approach of some investors, other investors suffer from the opposite problem in that they have a hard time maintaining a bullish or bearish view unless that view is continually being validated by the price action. That is, they are incapable of remaining confident in any opinion that doesn’t happen to conform to the current opinion of the manic-depressive mob. As a result they routinely get ‘sucked in’ following large price rises and ‘blown out’ following large price declines, as opposed to taking advantage of the mob’s proclivity to be wrong.

Therefore, as investors the challenge we all face is to strike a balance between staying the course in rough weather and preparing ourselves for the possibility that there could be unseen rocks up ahead.

A bullish divergence between the gold-mining sector of the stock market, as represented by the HUI and/or the XAU, and gold bullion involves the gold-mining sector having an upward bias while gold bullion has a downward bias or the gold-mining sector making a higher low while the bullion market makes a lower low. However, bullish divergences often don’t happen around major price bottoms. In fact, it is not uncommon for a major price bottom in gold-related investments to be preceded by a bearish divergence between the gold-mining indices and the metal. To be more specific, it is not uncommon for the gold-mining indices to be weak relative to gold bullion right up to the ultimate price bottom, at which point they suddenly become relatively strong.

Here are charts showing two historical examples of what I am referring to, either of which could be relevant to the present situation. The first chart shows the continuing downward bias in the XAU along with an upward bias in the US$ gold price in the weeks leading up to the XAU’s July-1986 bottom. The July-1986 bottom was followed by a huge multi-quarter rally in the gold-mining sector. The second chart shows the relentless decline in the HUI along with a flat gold price in the weeks leading up to the HUI’s November-2000 bottom. The November-2000 bottom was also followed by a huge multi-quarter rally in the gold-mining sector. The rally from the July-1986 bottom turned out to be the bear-market variety whereas the rally from the November-2000 bottom turned out to be the first leg of a new bull market, but from a practical speculation perspective an X% gain in a bear market is just as good as an X% gain in a bull market.

For comparison purposes, here is a chart showing the present situation.

It’s obviously too soon to know if the 10th August rebound in the gold-mining sector marked the start of a multi-quarter rally or even a 1-2 month rally, but the potential is there.

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

Everybody knows that the Fed will eventually hike its targeted interest rate. When it comes to rate hikes, the only unknowns involve timing. What hardly anybody knows is that the Fed’s interest-rate suppression has damaged the economy and that the longer it continues, the weaker the economy will get.

Based on the wording of last week’s FOMC statement it is still likely, but far from a certainty, that the first rate hike will happen in September. That is, the timing of the Fed’s first rate hike remains unknown. The bigger unknown, however, is the timing of the Fed’s second rate hike. The reason is that there could be a large gap between the first and second hikes as a jittery Fed takes its time assessing the effects of the first hike. It could also be a case of “one and done”.

There have recently been numerous comments in the press to the effect that the Fed should stay with its zero% target, the reasoning being that the US economy is not yet strong enough to cope with even the smallest of rate hikes. This is downright weird, given that the economy is supposedly now 6 years into a recovery from the 2007-2009 recession. Just to be clear, I am referring to comments that there SHOULD be no rate hike in the near future, not to comments that there WILL be no rate hike in the near future. The first type of comment is a policy recommendation based on the wrongheaded theory that keeping the Fed Funds Rate at zero will help the economy, whereas the second type of comment is based on the recognition that the Fed’s senior management is guided by wrongheaded theory.

Not to put too fine a point on it, only someone who is economically illiterate could believe an economy can be helped by forcing the risk-free short-term interest rate down to zero and holding it there for years. The reality is that when a central planner distorts price signals it causes investing errors in the affected parts of the economy, and when a central planner distorts the most important of all prices (the price of credit) it leads to investing errors across the entire economy. Many economists, and as far as I can tell all Keynesian economists, haven’t figured this out because their analyses are based on models that treat the economy as if it were an amorphous mass instead of what it is — an extremely complex network comprised of millions of individuals making decisions for their own reasons.

Strangely, the commentators on the financial world who claim that the Fed should continue its Zero Interest Rate Policy haven’t put two and two together. They haven’t twigged that it’s not a fluke that the greatest experiment in money-pumping and interest-rate suppression in the Fed’s history coincided with the weakest post-recession recovery since the 1930s. It’s not a fluke because the extraordinary stimulus is the main cause of the apparent inability of the economy to get out of its own way. A former Fed chairman (now blogger) and current Fed officials routinely take bows for having brought the economy back to health, and yet over the past three years the compound annual growth rate of real US GDP has been slightly less than 2%/year using the government’s estimate of “inflation” and probably around 0%/year using a more realistic estimate of “inflation”. And this 3-year period should have been the sweet spot of the post-2009 economic expansion!

To be fair, the failure to link the weakness of the recovery with the dramatic scale of the policy response is not actually strange. It is, in fact, completely understandable. After all, if the economic model to which you are totally committed is based on the assumption that money-pumping and interest-rate suppression give the economy a sustainable boost, then an unusually weak economy in the wake of aggressive intervention of this nature can only mean two things. It can only mean that the situation would have been even worse without the intervention and that the problem was too little, not too much, monetary accommodation.

It’s testament to the resilience of whatever capitalist elements remain that the Fed hasn’t yet driven the US economy into the ground. There must, however, be a limit to the amount of monetary accommodation (that is, to the amount of price falsification) that the economy can withstand. I wonder what that limit is. Unfortunately, by the looks of things we are going to find out.