10/6/2014: In Irish Press: Wilbur and Electricity Taxes

In Irish news today, one dominant story is that of BofI investor, Wilbur Ross moving on off 'Ireland Corp' team and into the not-too-shallow Government's Christmas Cards list. The US billionaire is cashing in his chip at the Irish Banks Casino and there is no end to glowing reviews of his legacy.

Per RTE report: "Mr Ross said he believes the bank is "on the right track". This is "definitely not a negative comment on BoI or Ireland. Both are clearly on the right track," Mr Ross said in an emailed message after Deutsche Bank announced it was to sell his stake." Naively, RTE could not fathom an idea that Mr Ross might be speaking in marketing mode - he is selling the stake in a bank, so hardly can be expected to make any comments adverse to his own interest of talking up the said bank.

But never mind, the really grotesque bit of the story is at the bottom, where our Government and State officials pour praise all over Mr Ross. Now, Mr Ross made a nice profit having taken some risk. No problem there. A slight blemish on his investment strategy in Ireland is the fact that much of this return was down to taxpayers taking on the bank recapitalisation burden. Slightly more of a blemish is the fact that during his tenure as a major shareholder and board member, the Bank became synonymous with playing the hardest ball with those borrowers who fell onto hard times. Still, let us not begrudge him in his success.

But the glowing and even slavish praise being heaped onto him makes one wonder if there is still a gas station somewhere on, say, N3 or N7 left unnamed? Is it time for a 'Wilbur Ross Plaza' replete with convenient Centra and washing facilities?

In a related bit of the story, we have projected valuations of the stake. Updating the above report from RTE, latest information we have is that he is selling the stake for EUR0.26-0.27 per share, a discount of up to 8.5% on yesterday's price. This is an impressively shallow discount (my expectation was closer to 10-12%), but still a discount. Some years ago, when Mr Ross just bought into BofI, I suggested that any exit will require a discount. A couple of Ireland's illustrious Stockbrokers came out of the hedges to bite me, claiming that actually Mr Ross can sell at a premium, as there can be a great demand around the world for BofI shares in a strategic package volume. Ooops...

Never, mind, however, the illustrious Stockbrokers are back at it, now lauding the virtues of 'increased free-float' of BofI shares in the wake of Mr Ross' exit as a major support for the stock. By said logic, BofI should just quadruple numbers of shares in the market, to gain even more 'support'.

On a related side, Reuters reported that "Ireland's Finance Minister Michael Noonan in December said that while the government had no interest in running banks long term, it was under no financial or political pressure to sell." (link here). Of course, this is the same Minister Noonan who's standard answer to virtually all questions about Irish Government involvement in managing strategic or operational aspects of individual banks it owns is: 'We have no control over what they do' and who's voting record as shareholder is about as 'activist' as that of the Anglo shareholders back in 2005.

A far less-dominant story also in the news today is that Irish Government is raising by a whooping 50% tax on domestic electricity. This is covered here. Per report: "Householders will be charged €66.55 a year in the PSO levy, up 47pc. When valued added tax (VAT) is added the annual cost on each household bills will go to €75.42." 

Irish Independent politely calls this a 'sneaky tax'... sneaky, presumably, because it is dressed up as a 'Public Service Obligation' - a levy designed to subsidise renewables energy companies and peat-burning stations. Which makes it more subtle than just bludgeoning taxpayers in dark alleys for their spare change.

At the end of 2013, Ireland had the fourth highest levels of electricity taxes and electricity prices in the EU27 and posted between the fourth and the fifth highest rate of increases in taxes and levies for electricity in EU27 (depending on annual consumption levels for households). Here is some additional background on how Irish Government has been extracting cash out of financially strained households via electricity supply systems.

13/12/2012: Some thoughts on gold

Tonight's Prime Time program covering gold is undoubtedly one of the rare occurrences that this asset class got some hearing in the Irish mainstream media. Which is the good news.

Not to dispute the issues as raised in the program, here are some of my own thoughts on the question of whether or not gold prices today represent a bubble.

A simple answer to this question, in my opinion, is that we do not know.

Short-term and even medium-term pricing of gold (in any currency) is driven by a number of factors (fundamentals), all of which are hard to capture, model and value.

For example, currency valuations forward suggest that gold is unlikely to experience a sharp and protracted correction in the US dollar terms, if you believe the Fed QE4 is likely to persist over time. In euro terms, potential for devaluation of the euro implies pressure to the upside to the gold price. Yen price is also likely to play longer-term continued devaluation scenario. Things are less certain when it comes to Pound Sterling price… and so on. Here's just one discussion on one of the above effects: http://soberlook.com/2012/12/precious-metals-hit-by-evans-rule.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Another example: drivers for prices on demand side that include rather volatile regulatory conditions in the major gold demand growth markets, such as China and India.

In short, things are much more brutally complex than the PrimeTime programme allowed for.

The reason for this complexity is that gold acts simultaneously (as an asset) in several structural ways:
1) as a simple bi-lateral long term hedge for inflation, equities and currency valuations
2) as a medium term (albeit not entirely persistent) hedge for some asset classes (e.g. equities)
3) as a short term speculative instrument to some investors
4) as a backing for numerous and large volume ETFs
5) as a benchmark backing for numerous and relatively large volume synthetic ETFs
6) as a store of value
7) as a risk management tool for complex structured portfolios
8) as a bilateral safe haven against equities and bonds, political and economic risks, systemic financial markets risks, etc.

These relationships can be unstable over time, can require long time horizon for materialization and are 'paid for' by assuming higher short term volatility in the price of gold. That's right - while PrimeTime contributors spoke about gold price 'correcting' or 'bubble bursting' none seemed to be aware of the fact that if you want to get something you want (hedging and safe have properties being desirable to investors), you should be prepared to pay for it (price volatility seems to be a good candidate for such cost of purchase).

No matter what happens in the short- to medium- term, gold is likely to remain the sole vehicle for the store of value and risk hedging over the long-term. It did so over the last 5,000 years or so and it will most likely continue doing so in years ahead. This property of gold is well established in the literature and is hardly controversial.

There is one caveat to it - due to instrumentation via ETFs, there are some early (and for now econometrically fragile) signs emerging that some of gold's hedging properties might be changing. More research on this is needed, however and only time will tell, so in line with PrimeTime, let's stay on the RTE side of Complexity Avoidance Bias on that one.

There is an excellent summary on what we know and what we don't know about gold by Brian M. Lucey available here:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1908650 .

Last year I gave a presentation at the Science Gallery on some properties of gold, which is posted here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2011/08/20082011-yielding-to-fear-or-managing.html .

Not to make this post a lengthy one, let me summarize my own view of gold as an asset class:

1. In my view, gold can be a long-term asset protection from the risk of expropriation, inflation, devaluations, and tail risks on political and economic newsflow side etc.
2. To me, gold is not a speculative (capital gains) instrument for the short-term and it should not be acquired in a concentrated fashion - buying in one go large allocations. Gold should be bought over longer period to allow for price-averaging to reduce exposure to gold price volatility.
3. Gold allocation should be relatively stable as a proportion of invested wealth - different rules apply, but 5-10% is a reasonable one in my view.
4. Of course, any investment portfolio (with or without gold) should strive to deliver maximum diversification across asset classes, assets geographies etc.

Disclosure: I have no financial interest in or any commercial engagement with any organization engaged in selling gold. Until December 1, 2012 I used to be a non-executive member of the investment committee of GoldCore Ltd and was never engaged on their behalf in any marketing or provision of advice to any of their current or potential clients.