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

To our surprise, the US economy has not entered a recession over the past two years. This is not because a recession has been avoided altogether but because the current economic cycle has been elongated.

We use the commodity/gold ratio (the Spot Commodity Index (GNX) or the CRB Index (CRB) divided by the US$ gold price) to define booms and busts, with booms being multi-year periods during which the ratio trends upward and busts being multi-year periods during which the ratio trends downward. The vertical lines drawn on the following GNX/gold chart mark the trend changes (shifts from boom to bust or vice versa) that have occurred since 2000.

It’s not essential that the bust phase of the cycle contains a recession, but it’s rare for a bust to end until a recession has occurred. Usually, the sequence is:

1) The commodity/gold ratio begins trending downward, marking the start of the economic bust phase.

2) The economic weakness eventually becomes sufficiently pervasive and severe to qualify as a recession.

3) Near the end of the recession the commodity/gold ratio reverses upward, thus signalling the start of a boom.

It is not unusual for the stock market to continue trending upward after the bust begins, but in the past the stock market always has peaked prior to a recession getting underway. For example, an economic bust began in October-2018 but the SPX continued to make new highs until early-2020. For another example, during the first half of the 1970s the stock market continued to trend upward for about three years after the start of a bust.

By the way, due to the change in the structure of the US stock market it’s possible that the next cyclical peak in the SPX will occur AFTER the start of a recession. This is because, thanks to the domination of passive investing, the stock market no longer forecasts cyclical trends in corporate earnings, interest rates or economic growth; it simply responds to passive money flows.

In the current cycle the commodity/gold ratio has been trending downward since the first half of 2022, meaning that the US economy now has been in the bust phase of the cycle for about three years without entering recession. This is unprecedented within the context of the past 30 years, but it is comparable to what happened during the 1970s.

A much longer-term view of the commodity/gold ratio is provided by the monthly chart displayed below. This chart uses the CRB prior to 1993 and the GNX thereafter.

There were two long bust phases during the 1970s, the first starting in Q1-1970 and the second starting in Q3-1976. The time from the start of the first bust to the start of a recession (November-1973) was about 3.5 years, and the time from the start of the second bust to the start of a recession (January-1980) also was about 3.5 years. Late this year will be about 3.5 years from the start of the current bust.

Consequently, although the current economic cycle has been elongated to an unusual extent relative to the cycles of the past few decades, it currently is in line with the cycles of the previous period during which inflation generally was viewed as the major economic issue.

[This blog most is a slightly modified excerpt from a commentary published at www.speculative-investor.com about three weeks ago]

We consistently have been predicting lower price inflation for almost three years now, but we also have been predicting that the downward inflation trend would be followed by another major inflation wave. It’s likely that the next major inflation wave will begin this year and continue for at least two years. It’s also likely that it will be driven more by government actions than by the creation of new money (monetary inflation). We’ll now explain why.

Despite the famous Milton Friedman comment to the contrary, price inflation (a rise in the cost of living for the average person) is not always a monetary phenomenon. It also can be a government phenomenon. The reason, in a nutshell, is that government interventionism and deficit-spending can distort the economy in a way that reduces productivity, leading to lower production and therefore to higher prices even in the absence of monetary inflation. In very simple terms, government actions can result in the same amount of money chasing less goods and services, causing prices to be higher on average.

Going deeper and focussing on the US, by its deeds and words it is reasonable to conclude that the US government will be 1) increasing its already-massive deficits over the years ahead, 2) driving up the costs of manufacturing in the US through tariffs on imported materials, and 3) using tariffs as a negotiating tool, thus ensuring that many business leaders remain uncertain about the costs that they will face in the future. There also is a risk that the US government will take actions that discourage foreign investment in the US.

An effect of the above-mentioned government actions will be reduced investment in productive enterprises. We note, for instance, that unless the additional debt issued by the government to finance its increased deficit spending is monetised by the Fed, it will crowd out investment in private businesses (the productive part of the economy). Furthermore, as well as driving up manufacturing costs, tariffs imposed on commodity imports probably will lead to shortages of some important commodities. While this could prompt efforts to increase local supply, due to the time, energy and materials it takes to bring new mines into production this additional building activity would, for at least a few years, have the effect of applying additional upward pressure to commodity prices and popular measures of inflation.

With the government putting upward pressure on many prices by making the economy less efficient, the Fed will not be able to justify the sort of monetary interventions it conducted during 1998-2021. The following chart shows that during this earlier period the year-over-year growth rate of the Core PCE (the Fed’s favourite inflation gauge) never went above 2.7% and spent most of its time in the 1%-2% range, effectively giving the Fed cover to ‘print’ as much new money as it deemed necessary to support the stock market and stimulate economic activity. That cover will not exist over the years ahead.

In addition, with it being obvious to almost everyone that the Fed contributed in a big way to the inflation problem of 2021-2023, from now on the Fed will tread far more carefully with regard to inflationary measures.

Consequently, we expect that for at least the next couple of years the Fed will be unwilling to mitigate the crowding-out effect of the government’s expanding indebtedness.

On a related matter, periodically in the past there would be a ‘deflation scare’ — a set of circumstances during which the Fed and other central banks effectively had carte blanche to ramp up the supply of money. Due to government-created shortages and price distortions, it’s unlikely that there will be a deflation scare within the next few years.

Summing up, the world has changed. For more than two decades every economic downturn or financial crisis was met with a new round of aggressive money creation, each of which set in motion a boom that ended in the bursting of an investment bubble, a deflation scare and another round of aggressive money creation. That won’t happen in the future, because government actions will maintain sufficient upward pressure on the prices of commodities, goods and services to limit the central bank’s ability to inflate the money supply.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary published about two weeks ago at www.speculative-investor.com]

In the latest Weekly Update we wrote that government actions would maintain sufficient upward pressure on the prices of commodities, goods and services to limit the central bank’s ability to inflate the money supply. What we meant is that for the foreseeable future there would not be the “deflation scares” that periodically led to large-scale money creation (QE) by the central bank during 2008-2021. However, we expect that the money supply will continue to grow.

In the US, prior to 2008 there was plenty of monetary inflation but no QE programs. Prior to 2008 the monetary inflation was driven by the commercial banks, which create new money (bank deposits) when they make loans and purchase securities.

The following monthly chart shows the year-over-year growth rate of US True Money Supply (TMS), with a vertical red line drawn to mark the start of the Fed’s first QE program in September-2008. Clearly, there were many waves of monetary inflation prior to the introduction of QE, all of which were due to deposit creation by commercial banks. We expect that there will be waves of monetary inflation in the future, again due to deposit creation by commercial banks. Commercial banks have the legal ability to create money out of nothing, so naturally that’s what they will do in the future just like they did in the past.

A problem will arise when the economy becomes very weak and commercial banks stop expanding credit due to a contraction in the pool of qualified private borrowers. We suspect that this problem will be mitigated by incentivising or forcing the commercial banks to purchase more government debt, which they would do by creating new money that the government would inject into the economy via its spending. What we don’t expect is large-scale asset monetisation (QE) by the Fed in response to future economic weakness, because “price inflation” statistics won’t provide the necessary cover.

Anyway, the point we wanted to make is that there probably will be ‘ample’ monetary inflation in the future, it’s just that the money creation won’t be driven directly by the Fed. Due to the popular inflation indices spending most of their time well above the Fed’s target, monetary inflation will become the purview of the commercial banks — just like it was prior to 2008.

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

In last week’s Interim Update we noted the speculation in uranium-related equities and listed seven reasons to expect a sufficient increase in the demand for uranium over the years ahead to cause the price of this commodity to move much higher. We then concluded: “Due to [these reasons] and that it would take several years to develop new sources of uranium supply, we don’t think it is unreasonable to expect the uranium price to double or even triple within the next three years. However, there’s a limit to how much higher the prices of uranium equities will be able to move without the support of an upward-trending uranium price. At the moment, what’s needed is a move above the May-2025 high (near US$73) to underpin the speculation.” Well, thanks to a 9% surge in the uranium price on Monday 16th June, the move above the May-2025 high has happened. Refer to the following daily chart for the details.

The uranium price is determined by the supply of and the demand for the physical commodity, so daily price moves such as the one that occurred on Monday of this week are rare. Monday’s unusual price increase was the result of this news:

The Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (U.U.TO), a daily chart of which is displayed below, announced on Monday 16th June that it is raising US$200M (initially the amount was $100M, but the financing was upsized to $200M due to strong investor demand) by issuing new trust units. Also, it announced that the “net proceeds per Unit to be received by the Trust will be not less than 100% of the most recently calculated net asset value of the Trust per Unit prior to the determination of the pricing of the Offering.”

This news was bullish for the uranium price, because the proceeds of the offering will be used to purchase physical uranium, thus reducing the supply of uranium available to meet the requirements of the nuclear power industry.

U.U is in a unique position in that the more new units it issues the higher its own net asset value (NAV) is likely to become, given that the money it raises is used to take uranium out of the market. However, it only makes sense for the Fund to issue new units when its market value is close to or above its NAV. At one point in early-April it was trading at a discount to NAV of around 20%, but the subsequent elimination of this discount opened the door to the current offering.

What happened on Monday of this week possibly will occur again and again, because every time U.U’s market price rises to its NAV or above it will make sense for the Fund to issue more units to buy more uranium, thus driving its own NAV upward.