2/4/2012: Q1 2012 US Mint Gold coins sales

Time to update the data for Q1 2012 US Mint gold coins sales - something I have been doing as a sort of an ongoing project.

As before, there is much volatility sloshing around, and as before, there is less drama when one takes a closer look at the data.

Q1 2012 volume of sales (oz) of US Mint coins fell 29.7% year on year, and 22.3% on 2010. The demand is also down 38.5% on 2009. Total volume of sales stood at 210,500 oz in Q1 2012, 17% below the average demand for Q1 over 2008-2011 period, but much stronger (+89%) on pre-crisis average for 2000-2007.

Much of the downside to the demand was driven by February sales, which run 21,000 oz against March sales of 62,500 oz.

Chart below illustrates:

Note that stabilization of the price trend along the flat line above US$1,660/oz since H2 2011 is not associated with establishment of a similarly flat trend for volume of US Mint sales. More on this below, but in basic terms this confirms that the demand for gold coins has little to do with the price in general. In other words, no hysteria and no bubble here. Something other than price movements drives demand for coins. 

It is worth noting, that, as consistent with the above observations 6mo MA for volume demand is now at 95,083 oz which is below the March demand of 99,500. Again, no drama - rather mean reversion in the short run.

On the side of coinage sold, demand for coins fell 20.6% in Q1 2012 compared to Q1 2011, but it up 41.3% on Q1 2010 and 12.0% on Q1 2009. Total demand was 383,000 coins in Q1 2012 of which 256,500 came in January. Compared to this, 2000-2007 Q1 average is 216,929 and 2008-present Q1 average is 313,000. So current first quarter is well ahead of the historical averages, but on a moderate side compared to 2011.

 Looking at the two charts above, it is clear that while volume demand is following a pronounced down-sloping trend, coinage demand is relatively flat. Which is consistent with a decrease in average gold content per coin sold. In Q1 2012, average oz/coin sold fell to 0.63 from 0.82 average for Q1 2008-2011. Average weight per coin is down 0.1% in Q1 2012 year on year, and down 37% on Q1 2010 and Q1 2009 (in both of these years, average oz/coin content of US Mint coins sold was 1.0). However, this decline has itself been mean-reverting as the chart below clearly shows.

One point to be made in addition to the above is the increased volatility in the series since the mid-2007 through 2010 that is now abating since the beginning of 2011. This reinforces the general historical trend established since 1987.

As mentioned above, correlations between price and volume of gold demanded (via US Mint coinage sales) are now running consistently below the historical trend for some time - primarily since H2 2010. This continues today. The 12mo rolling correlation is negative on-average since July 2010 and this remains the case for Q1 2012. However, Q1 2012 negative correlation is moderate - averaging just -0.05, which is statistically indistinguishable from the Q1 2011 (+0.1) and more moderate than -0.4 correlation for Q1 2010. The average for 12mo rolling correlations for Q1 period over 2000-2007 was +0.18 and during the crisis period it fell to +0.03. With standard deviation of 0.36 none of these correlations suggest any dramatic departures in price-demand relationship from a stable long-term zero correlation trend. Chart below illustrates:

The point that the above adata suggests is best glimpsed by directly relating the levels and the rates of change in gold price and the overall demand for gold via US Mint coins. Both exercises are illustrated below:

And guess what: historically - that is since 1987 - gold price has virtually nothing to do with demand for US Mint coins (in terms of volume of gold sold via coins) neither in terms of levels of price effect on levels of demand for gold, nor in terms of rate of change in price effect on rates of change in demand.

Which means that at least in the case of the US Mint sales, there is no hype, and no madness. What there is instead, is a rather volatile demand with gentle upward slope imposed against a robustly positive exponential relationship in gold price:

The fact that in recent months demand for gold has been oscillating around the historic trend (as opposed to resting above that trend in August 2008-August 2011 period) is the good news - the current levels of demand are historically sustainable, trend reversion-consistent and show neither hype, nor panic buying.

As I have noted in January post (here): "Welcome back to ‘normalcy’ in US Mint sales." Yep, still holds.




Disclaimer:

1) I am a non-executive member of the GoldCore Investment Committee
2) I am a Director and Head of Research with St.Columbanus AG, where we do not invest in any specific individual commodity
3) I am long gold in fixed amount over at least the last 5 years with my allocation being extremely moderate. I hold no assets linked to gold mining or processing companies.
4) I have done and am continuing doing academic work on gold as an asset class, but also on other asset classes. You can see my research on my ssrn page the link to which is provided on this blog front page.

5) Yes, you can find points (1)-(3) disclosed properly and permanently on my public profiles. 

6) I receive no compensation for anything that appears on this blog. Never did and not planning to start now either. Everything your read here is my own personal opinion and not the opinion of any of my employers, current, past or future.

2/2/2012: US Mint Sales for January - signaling return to fundamentals-driven demand?

January data is out for US Mint sales and time to update my semi-regular analysis. Here's the note. I am putting a disclaimer below - so the Irish stuffbrokers' community that somehow gets their facts wrong when no one is around to correct them breaths easier. Everything you read below is my personal opinion informed by my analysis of the official data from the US Mint.

January data from the US Mint on sales of gold coins presents an interesting picture, both in terms of seasonality and overall demand for the asset class.

Some background to start with. 

Gold prices have been moving sideways with some relatively moderate volatility in recent months. Between August 2011 - the monthly peak in US Dollar-quoted price and January 2012, price has fallen 4.55%, but in the last month, monthly move was 10.82% and year on year prices are up 30.4%. Crisis-period average price is now at USD1,154/oz and the standard deviation in prices is around 337 against the historical (1987-present) standard deviation of 330. In 2011 standard deviation for monthly prices stood at (small sample-adjusted) 144, well below historical volatility, due to a relatively established trend through August 2011. However, prices returned to elevated volatility in August 2011-January 2012.

These price dynamics would normally suggest rising caution and buyer demand reductions over time. And to some extent, this sub-trend was traceable in the data for US Mint sales in some recent months too. For example, unadjusted for seasonal variation, August 2011 sales of Mint coins peaked at 112,000 oz with relatively moderate 0.67 oz/coin sold gold content. By November 2011, sales slowed down to a relative trickle of 41,000 oz at 0.71 oz/coin sold. December sales came in at 65,000 oz with gold content on average of 1 oz per coin sold. Much media hullabaloo ensued with calls for catastrophic fall off in demand, the renewed claims that a gold bubble is now in action and the decline is coinage sales as evidence of that.

In reality, there was very little surprising in the sales trends overall.

Chart 1 below shows US Mint sales in terms of the number of coins sold. Care to spot any dramatic bubble-formation or bubble-deflation here? Not really. There is a gentle historical upward trend since January 1987. There is volatility around that trend in 2010 and far less of it in 2011. There is seasonality around the trend with Q1 sales uplifts in January, some Christmas season buying supports in early Q4 etc. There is also a slightly elevated sub-trend starting from early 2009 and continuing through today. More interestingly, the sub-trend is mean-reverting (heading down) which is - dynamically-speaking stabilizing, rather than 'bubble-expanding' or 'bubble-deflating'.

Chart 1

Source: US Mint and author own analysis

Now, January sales are strong in the historical context and within the sub-trend since 2009. January 2012 sales of US Mint coins came in at 127,000 oz with relatively low 0.50 oz/coin sales. So coinage sales in terms of oz weight are 95.4% up on December, but 4.9% down on January 2011. For comparison, 2011 average monthly sales were 83,292 and crisis-period average monthly sales were 94,745 all at least 0.5 standard deviations below January 2012 sales. As chart above clearly shows, sales are now well ahead of historical averages and above 6 months moving average.

However, as chart below shows, sales in January were well below the trend line for average coin weight for sold coins: oz per coin sold is down 50.5% mom and down 43.1% year on year. Significantly, smaller coins were sold in January this year than in 2011. 2011 average oz/coin sold was 1.0 and the latest sales are closer to 0.59 oz/coin historical average.

Chart 2

Source: Author own data and analysis based on underlying data from the US Mint

There is no panic in the overall trends in demand for coins when set against the price changes, with negative general trend in correlations between demand and gold price established in mid-2009 continuing unabated, as shown in Chart 3

CHART 3

 Source: US Mint, World Gold Council and author own analysis

However, when we look closer at the 12 months rolling correlations and 24 months rolling correlations, the picture that emerges for January is consistent with gentle negative correlation that has been present since the beginning of 2011. See Chart 4 below. January 2012 12mo rolling correlation between gold price and volume of gold sold via US Mint coins is +0.02, having reverted to the positive from -0.42 in December 2011. This is the first positive (albeit extremely low) monthly 12mo rolling correlation reading since July 2010. 24 mo rolling correlation in January 2012 stood at benign -0.30, slightly up on -0.34 in December 2012. Again, resilience if present in the longer term series and at shorter horizon there are no huge surprises either. Of course, in general, one can make a case, based on the recent data, that investors are simply turning back to the specific instrument after gold price corrected sufficiently enough. In this light, latest US Mint data would be consistent with fundamentals-supported firming of demand. But crucially, there is no evidence of either panic buying or selling.

CHART 4

Source: Author own analysis based on the data from US Mint

Lastly, let's take a look at seasonally-neutral like-for-like January sales. Chart below shows data for January sales, suppressing the huge spike at 1999. Clearly, sales are booming in terms of coins numbers sold. But recall that coins sold in January 2012 are smaller in gold content, so overall gold sold via US Mint coinage is marginally down on January 2011, making January 2012 sales the fourth highest on record.

CHART 5

 Source: Author own analysis based on the data from US Mint

The Table below shows summary of US Mint coins sales for 3 months November-January covering holidays periods sales, including the Chinese New Year sales. While January 2012 period shows healthy sales across all three parameters, there is still no sign of any panic buying by small retail investors anywhere in sight here. Sales are ticking nicely, in 2011 and 2012, well ahead of 2001-2008 levels (confirming lack of evidence that sustained price appreciation over the last 18 months has provided a signal to dampen retail demand), but behind 2009-2010 spikes (further supporting the view that 2011-2012 dynamics are those of potential moderation in the precautionary and flight-to-safety motives for demand, and more buying on long-term gold fundamentals).

TABLE: US Mint sales – 3 months through January

 Source: Author own analysis based on the data from US Mint

Welcome back to ‘normalcy’ in US Mint sales.

Disclaimer:

1) I am a non-executive member of the GoldCore Investment Committee
2) I am a Director and Head of Research with St.Columbanus AG, where we do not invest in any specific individual commodity
3) I am long gold in fixed amount over at least the last 5 years with my allocation being extremely moderate. I hold no assets linked to gold mining or processing companies.
4) I have done and am continuing doing academic work on gold as an asset class, but also on other asset classes. You can see my research on my ssrn page the link to which is provided on this blog front page.

5) Yes, you can find points (1)-(3) disclosed properly and permanently on my public profiles. 

6) I receive no compensation for anything that appears on this blog. Never did and not planning to start now either. Everything your read here is my own personal opinion and not the opinion of any of my employers, current, past or future.

07/11/2011: US Mint sales for October

In recent weeks there was some long-expected noises coming out of the gold 'bears' quick to pounce on the allegedly 'collapsing' sales of gold coins by the US mint. I resisted the temptation to make premature conclusions until the full monthly sales data for October is in. At last, we now can make some analytical observations.

The thesis advanced by the 'bears' is that October sales declines (for US Mint sales of new coins) are:

1. Profoundly deep
2. Consistent with 'gold bubble is bursting at last' environment and
3. Significantly out of line with previous trends, and
4. Changes are reflective of buyers exiting the market on the back of high gold prices

Let's take a look at the data:

First - sales. 

In absolute terms, number of coins sold by the US Mint in October has fallen to 65,000 from 115,500 in September. Mom, thus, volume of sales, measured in the number of coins is down 43.7% and yoy change is -45.6%. Significant declines. Latest sales are running below the historical trend and 6mo MA has hit the long term historical trendline. 

This suggests reversion to historical mean, as predicted by my previous note on this matter and is, in my view, a welcome sign of some 'froth' reduction in the speculative component of the market. The trend remains on the upside, and 6mo MA is still running ahead of pre-crisis averages. Historical average is at 98,329 coins with a massive standard deviation of 112,309. Crisis period average is 128,967 and smaller (but still substantial) standard deviation of 110,323. Now, for 10 months of 2011 so far, the average is 130,400 coins sold, but the standard deviation (imprecise estimate, of course) of 41,934 or roughly 1/3 of the volatility over entire history.

Thus, if anything, monthly movements along the elevated average trend for crisis period are now looking less volatile than in pre-crisis period, which suggests that gold is acting as a hedge during the crisis against prolonged risks in other asset classes and that this property is so far being reinforced by reduced volatility as well.

Chart above shows that when it comes to gold coinage sales in volume (oz) of gold content, October sales (50,000 oz) are well below September sales (91,000 oz) and are 46.8% behind October 2010 sales. Worried 'bears' are onto something here? Well, not exactly. As with coinage, volatility of the series historically runs at 52,985 against historical average sales of 55,768 oz. Crisis-period volatility is at 44,726 against crisis-period average sales of 95,859 oz. 10mo through october 2011 volatility is at 26,514 (1/2 of historical volatility) and average sales are 89,350 oz - below crisis period average. Again, there seems to be more stability in sales in terms of oz volume than before, which, surely, should be a good thing for a hedge instrument. The 6mo MA trend is on decline here since March-May 2011 and, again, this is not a bad thing, as it signals continued reversion to 'normal' trading conditions - i.e. potential reduction in speculative buying.

Next little thingy, volume of gold per coin sold on average now stands at 0.769 oz/coin in October, virtually bang on with September 0.788 oz/coin. Which too is a good thing. Average historical volume of gold per coin sold is 0.587 oz/coin (stdev of 0.2) and crisis-period average is 0.816 oz/coin (stdev of 0.191). Latest 10 months period average is 0.703 oz/coin (note - we are still well ahead of that in October) and stdev for the period is 0.126 - well below historical volatility. 

So no drama - in fact, much less drama - in October data. Upward trends remain, reversion to trend is ongoing nicely, volatility falling. I never make predictions about bubbles timing, but as far as 'bursting' explosions and profound changes - I don't really see them. At least not yet.

What about the fourth 'argument' listed above? Are buyers fleeing gold coins markets because prices are too high? Well, I don't know what buyers think, but correlation between price of gold and volume of gold sold via coins by the US Mint is evolving as follows:

Thus, in October, 12mo dynamic correlation has fallen to -0.24 from -0.06 in September. This looks dramatic, until we consider historical trends. Average historical correlation is at -0.09 with stdev of 0.397. Crisis period correlation averages at -0.151 with a standard deviation of 0.377. For the period of January 2011-October 2011, average correlation is at -0.205 and stdev at 0.151.

The above implies that while current negative correlation is not dramatic, the trend in 2011 is so far distinctly for deeper negative correlations between gold price and coins sales and for more stability along this trend line.

Is this a good thing? Nope. The opposite is true in my opinion. More negative correlation implies stronger reduction in speculative buying, leaving gold coins demand more dependent on long term hedging objectives and as the tool for preservation of wealth. In other words, less speculation, more long term demand. This is not what we should see in a bubble 'bursting' stages.

Once again, caution is due - I am not arguing if there is a bubble in gold markets overall. This is just analysis of the coins sales. I am simply suggesting that we are seeing a well-predicted reversion to the mean along upward trend in demand. We are also seeing, in my opinion, gold coins doing exactly what gold in general is expected to do - providing long term hedge instrument against risks associated with other asset classes.

Disclosure: I serve as non-executive member of the Investment Committee of GoldCore and I am long gold with stable unchanged allocation over the last 3 years. All of the above views are solely my own. 

11/09/2011: What gold coins sales tell us about the 'bubble'

Here is the extended version of the article published by Globe & Mail on the topic of US Mint sales of gold coins.

Of all asset classes in today's markets, gold is unique. And for a number of reasons(i).

Firstly it acts as a long-term hedge and a short-term flight to safety instrument against virtually all other asset classes.ii Secondly, it supports a wide range of instruments, including physical delivery (bullions, coins and jewellery), gold-linked legal tender, gold-based savings accounts, plain vanilla and synthetic ETFs, derivatives and producers-linked equities and funds. All of these are subject to diverse behavioural drivers of demand. Thirdly, gold is psychologically and analytically divisive, with media coverage oscillating between those who see gold as either a long-term risk management tool, or a speculative investment, a "barbaric relic" prone to "bubble"-formation.

In the latter context, it is interesting to look closer at the less-publicised instrument - gold coins, traditionally held by retail investors as portable units to store wealth. Due to this, plus demand from collectors, gold coins are less liquid and represent more of a pure 'store of value' than a speculative instrument. Lower liquidity of coins is not driven by shallow demand, but by reluctance of owners to sell them when prices change. Gold coins are economically-speaking "sticky" on the downside of prices - when price of gold falls, holders of coins are not usually rush-prone to sell as they perceive their coins holdings to be 'long-term accumulations', rather than speculative (or yield-sensitive) investments. They are also "sticky" on the upside of prices - while demand is impacted by price effects (with generally higher gold prices acting to discourage new accumulation of coins), holders of coins are not quick to sell to realize capital gains, again due to entirely different timing to the holdings motives. Think of a person setting aside few thousand dollars worth in gold coins to save for child's college fund.

In general markets, classical bubbles begin to arise when speculative motives (bets on continued and accelerating price appreciation) exceed fundamentals-driven motives for opening new long positions in the instrument. Bubbles blow up when these tendencies acquire wide-based support amongst retail investors.

In late stages of the bubble, we should, therefore, expect demand for gold coins to falter compared to the demand for financially instrumented gold (ETFs shares and options). In the mid-period of bubble evolution, however, as retail investors just begin to rush into the asset, we can expect demand for coins to rise in line with demand for jewellery and smaller bullion. But we do not expect a flood of gold coins into the secondary market (and hence a collapse in gold coins sales) until literally past the turn of the fundamentals-driven prices toward the stage of mid-cycle "bubble" collapse.

The US Mint data on sales of gold coins suggests that we are not in the last days of the "bubble". But there are warning signs to watch into the future.

August sales by the US Mint were up a whooping 170% year on year in terms of total number of coins sold, while the weight of coins sold is up 194%. On the surface, this gives some support to the theory of gold becoming short-term overbought by retail investors (see chart below), but it also contradicts longer-term view that gold coins sales should fall around bubble peak.

Source: US Mint and author own analysis

In part, monthly comparatives reflect huge degree of volatility in US Mint sales. Looking at the longer term horizon, since January 2008, US Mint sales volumes averaged 97,011 oz with average coin sold carrying 0.82 oz of gold, the standard deviation of these sales was 45,196 oz and 0.19 oz/coin, implying that August results comfortably fit within the statistical bounds of +/- 1/2 STDEV of the mean for the crisis period. Equally importantly, August results fit within +/-1 STDEV band of the historical mean since 1986 through today. In other words, current gold coinage sales do not even represent a 1-sigma event for the entire history of gold coins sales supplied by the US Mint and are within 0.5-sigma risk weighting for the crisis period since January 2008.

Neither is the current monthly increases in demand represent a significant uptick on previous months or years demand. At 112,000 oz of gold coins sold, August 2011 is only the 19th busiest month is sales since January 2008. It ranks as the 34th month in terms of the gold content per coin sold. Again, not dramatic by any possible metrics. Since January 1988 there were 87 months in which average gold content per coin exceeded August 2011 average and on 38 occasions, volumes of gold sold in the form of coins by the US Mint exceeded last month's volume.

Again, not dramatic by any possible metrics, especially once we recognize that in terms of risk-related fundamentals, August was an impressive month with US and EU debt crises boiling up and economic growth slowdown weighing on global equities markets.

Charts below illustrate these points.
Source: US Mint and author own analysis
Source: Author own calculations based on the US Mint data
Source: Author own calculations based on the US Mint data

The data also shows that physical demand for coins is largely independent of the spot price of gold. Historically, since 1986, average 12-months rolling correlation between the spot price of gold and the volumes of gold sold in US Mint coins is negative at -0.09. Since January 2008, the average correlation is -0.2. And over the last 3 years, the trend direction of gold spot price (up) and the volumes of gold sold in coinage (down) have actually diverged (see chart). The latter is, of course, concerning and will require closer tracking in months to come. The correlation between price of gold and volumes of gold sales through US Mint coins is now negative or zero for 13 consecutive months.

Source: Author own calculations based on the US Mint data

Source: Author own calculations based on the US Mint data

The chart above also highlights the fact that the current trend levels of US Mint sales are significantly elevated on previous periods, with exception of 1986-1987 and 1998-1999 demand spikes. Since the global economic crisis began, annual coinage sales rose 7-fold from just under 200,000 oz in 2007 to 1,435,000 oz in 2009, before falling back to 1,220,500 oz in 2010. Using data through August, I expect 2011 sales to remain at around 1,275,000 oz. This implies that the 2008-2011 average annual sales of US Mint coinage gold are likely run at slightly above 2 times the average annual rate of sales of coinage gold in the period 1988-2007.

Given the state of the US and other advanced economies around the world since January 2008, this is hardly a sign of dramatic over-buying of gold by masses of retail investors. Instead, we are witnessing two core divergent trends emerging from the coins markets:

1. Since, roughly-speaking, 2009, the trend in coins sales is moving counter to the trend in spot price for gold, implying that retail investors are not rushing into gold, as one would expect were gold to be a bubble, and
2. The levels of sales of US Mint coins remain elevated, on average, since the crisis began, implying that high demand for coins, relative to historic trends, is most likely being driven by fundamentals-underpinned demand for safety.
   

In short, there is no indication, in the data reviewed, of the bubble beginning to inflate (sharp rises in gold coins demand along the trend with prices) or close to deflating (sharp pull-back in demand for gold coins).

Of course, the evidence above does not imply any definitive conclusions as to whether gold is or is not a "bubble". Instead, it points to one particular aspect of demand for gold - the behaviorally anchored, longer-term demand for gold coins as wealth preservation tool for smaller retail investors. Given the state of the US and other advanced economies around the world since January 2008, US Mint data does not appear to support the view of a dramatic over-buying of gold by the fabled speculatively crazed retail investors that some media commentators are seeing nowdays.


Disclosure: I am long physical gold and hold no long or short positions in other gold instruments.


i These and other facts about gold are summarized in my recent presentation available at http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/20082011-yielding-to-fear-or-managing.html.

ii As shown in the recent research paper by Profs Brian Lucey, Cetin Ciner, and myself, covering the period of 1985-2009: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1679243

24/08/2011: Few thoughts on today's Gold price correction

Following a dramatic rise over the recent weeks, gold registered a correction today. At this moment in time, gold for December 2011 delivery is down 5.76% on the day and is priced at USD 1,754.00 / oz. Here's a snapshot:
Of course, one day movement can be many things:

• A sustained correction (with market settling at lower levels and running along a flat trend)
• A short-term correction (with a return to, perhaps more sustainable, upward trend)
• A bear trap (with relatively prolonged period of downward corrections followed by a return to positive trend) and so on

While it is extremely hazardous to profess any explanations for specific daily (and generally high frequency) changes, here are some of the reasons that are being advanced by various analysts as to the possible drivers of today's correction:

1. The margins theory (see zerohedge comment here): CME raised margins on gold for the second time in the month, having hiked them first 22% and now raising them 27% again (new account margins are now at USD9,450 and maintenance accounts at USD5,500). This second rise follows 26% hike on margins by the Shanghai Gold Exchange (+26%) on Monday to 12%. In theory, margins increases should symmetrically rise costs for short and long positions on gold futures. Which can lead to closing of some positions. In practice, however, two things occur. Firstly, short positions face lower margin exposures than long positions - the difference being small, alas. Secondly, margins increases themselves might be dramatic, but on absolute terms they are still small, unless you are opening highly levered new accounts. The margins theory, in my view, helps explain the physical move in prices, but not the behavioral drivers for investors' reaction. More likely, in my view, is the possibility that two consecutive, short-spread margin hikes signal to the investors that CME is actively trying to prevent gold going parabolic, to contain speculative momentum. If so, current correction is welcome, as it triggers retrenchment of speculative leveraged investors.
2. The talk about Euro area demands for the collateral on Greek (and Portuguese and Irish... and may be Italian and Sapnish...) loans from EFSF/ESM/alphabet soup. FtAlphaville speculates on this (here). There can be indeed a push for such a move, though I doubt it will result in actual sales of gold reserves. Even if the sales were to take place, European peripheral gold will most likely be placed 'discretely' to other central banks and treasuries, plus the IMF in fear of destabilizing official reserves elsewhere. The last thing Europe will want to do is to dent its own (German, French & UK) wealth and anger a bunch of governments in Asia, plus the US & IMF - all of which are deeply into gold holdings.

Incidentally, couple of days ago I commented on twitter that CME margins increases are long-term positive for gold, if they are successful in cooling off speculative leveraged investors.

My guess - and I stress that this is a guess - is that the current correction can turn out to be relatively deep, but it will not alter long term (9-12 months) upward trend for gold. The reason is simple: US, UK, Japan and Europe are poised to print money. In part, this is already factored into previous highs for gold. In part, the uncertainty about the quantities of QE to be deployed, are offering both the upside and the downside scenarios for the gold price relative to peak.

If, however, the global QE does not materialize, stock markets and corporate debt markets will likely to slip into serious bear sentiment. Which will push gold back onto near-parabolic trend up.

As far as today's short-term correction goes, my view is that it was 'helped' by the shifts of liquidity into equities with markets posting another day of strong upsides.

For a longer-term lesson to be learned: today's correction shows clearly the perils (for ordinary investors) of rushing into an asset with a single large-scale purchase. Instead, gold should be treated as a long-term allocation aimed at real wealth preservation and hedging. Such allocation should be built over time, with sustained - volatility-reducing - strategic long positions. Not with attempts to 'time' the market or based on impulsive buy-ins based on expected capital gains.

And, of course, the volatility shown by today's gold price movement, as well as an even more dramatic volatility in equities and fixed income shown over recent months, highlight the need for conservative, long-term investment strategy based on proper risk management and diversification.

20/08/2011: Yielding to Fear or Managing Wealth

Here's a copy of my presentation from August 18th in the Science Gallery covering some of my views on gold (announcement here). All disclosures were made in the announcement and at the beginning of my presentation - do not accept this as either an advice to take any investment action - as usual. You can click on individual slides to enlarge.

Economics 07/03/2010: A long term view of the currency markets

With the euro unsteady against the dollar (post-10%+ drop in recent months from its highs over 1.50 in December 2009 to 1.35) there is a question to be asked - can dollar and euro act as reasonable hedges for each other. In other words, should euro-overweight Europeans hold dollars, while dollar-overweight Americans, Asians and Latin American hold euros? In my view – neither.

This view is formed by my belief that both currencies will continue to fluctuate along a short-term weakening of the euro rend, followed by an equally volatile, but flat trend in the medium term, moving into a dollar appreciation trend in the long run.

Why? Because two economies fundamentals are currently very similar, and only the long term view affords a potential for the US to pull away from the structurally sicker European partners.

In absolute terms, the EU27 is the largest ‘economy’ in the world – some 16.2% greater in terms of PPP-adjusted GDP than the US ($14.2 trillion) economy. But the eurozone itself is equivalent to just 74% of the US total output, despite being 10 million ahead of the US in population terms. Taken as such, one can argue that on average, the euro currency and the US dollar cores are roughly the same.

Both had pretty tough time through the downturn. 2009 US GDP was down 2.7% outperforming Eurozone where GDP fell 4.2%. Unemployment is running pretty much in line, but US unemployment is usually more willing to subside once recovery begins. On financial sector side, euro area has taken roughly 40% of the required corrections of the banks balancesheets as of Q4 2009, while the US banks have taken 60%.

Inflation in the US has been running ahead of the EU16 (2.7% as opposed to 0.6% in 2009). But this inflation differential means two things – it reflects differences in the timing and the size of fiscal and monetary interventions and it reflects the effects of devaluation of the dollar. US recovery has begun, while EU16 is still languishing at around 0% growth and there are growing signs of a possible double dip hitting Berlin, Paris, Rome and Madrid, not to mention the peripherals.

Greeks are the star performers when it comes to the circus of fiscal recklessness in the Northern Hemisphere: 12.2% deficit (more likely closer to 13%). Last week’s plan to trim 2% off that number is, assuming it actually comes into being, equivalent to being 5.875% short of the cost of financing the Greek debt annually. In other words, Greek debt is priced at 6.3% per annum. It stands at 125% of GDP, which means that 7.875% of the GDP is spent every year by the Greeks on interest payments on the debt alone. It will take Greece 4 years of consecutive 2% cuts to just cancel out the existent interest on the debt.

For Ireland, the figures are hardly more pleasant. 11.6% deficit planned for in 2010 Budget (a net cut of just 0.1% on 2009 figure) and with our debt (ex-Nama) heading for €90 billion (over €100 billion with recapitalization factored in) or 56% of expected 2010 GDP, at the latest yield of 5%, means that our debt burden is currently taking up 2.8-3.2% of GDP annually. At the current rates of budgetary adjustments (per Budget 2010), it will take Ireland Inc over 30 years to bring the budget into offsetting the interest costs on the current debt.

Ok, I hear your protests, the actual cut was closer to €3.3 billion or 2.04% of GDP, but further deterioration in expenditure due to social welfare and unemployment increases has scaled this back to 0.1%. Fine – at 2.04% cuts, it will take Ireland 1.5 years to offset the interest bill. Factoring in Nama and expected deficits in 2010-2014, 3 years of consecutive cuts of the same magnitude as Budget 2010 would do the job.

The important thing here, of course, is to remember that in both cases (Greece and Ireland) these cuts will not be denting the deficit at all, just offsetting the rising interest rate bill. And we made no assumptions about the direction of the bonds yields.

But Greece, Ireland and the rest of APIIGS aside, the EU and euro area are fiscally marginally better than the US. The EU16 average deficit will be 6.9% of GDP in 2010 – some 3.7 percentage points below that of the US. Similarly for the debt levels: euro area is currently at 84% of GDP, rising to 88% in 2011 and over 100% by 2014. In the US, current debt is already at 87% of GDP and will rise to 100% by 2012.

Of course, there are three things worth mentioning. EU forecasts are done by the EU Commission with historic accuracy record of tea leafs readers. US forecasts are done by the US Budget Office, with rather decent forecasting powers. The US is more willing to deflate out of its debt problems than the EU16.

Finally, the numbers above do not reflect the fact that there is a higher risk of a double dip in the euro area. Nor do they reflect the fact that EU16 banks are still facing severe liquidity and capital shortages amidst untaken writedowns.

In other words, expect euro area deficit and debt to go up erasing the difference between the US and EU in fiscal terms.

So what really perpetuates US dollar vastly more powerful position in the reserve vaults of the banks worldwide is the legacy. Central banks simply cannot unwind their massive holdings of the dollar without destroying their own balancesheets. This process will have to be stretched over time.

The thing is – with the latest revelations concerning Greek financial mechanics in the past and the EU’s inability to face the reality, majority of the central banks around the world which might have started reducing their dollar exposure in the recent past are now reversing that strategy. Going into dollar became fashionable once again.

But the dollar is not a safe heaven in the medium term. And neither is, per above, the euro. One analyst recently described the current shift back into the dollar as “exchanging your ticket on the Titanic for a ride on the Hindenburg”.

So really, folks, last time this happened – parallel inflation in the euro and the dollar and economic weakening of both, with public finances coming under pressure – back in 2007, the markets response was an age-old one. Gold and commodities went up, debt went down, stocks went out of the window. It looks like we are in 2006 once again, sans economic boom, but with a new rebalancing. I would expect gold to continue firming up, commodities to lag behind on the same trend and stocks and FX bouncing violently at the bottom.

Economics 31/01/2010: S&P, Gold and forward view on risk

Couple articles worth reading:

1) China bubble - here. In my view - the analyst is spot on - there is a massive bubble in Chinese economy. So large, when it goes, the entire global growth will be derailed. We are, in effect, now treading to closely to the 1932-1934 period of the Great Depression, when the markets forgot fear for a sustained Bear rally before rediscovering that risk mispriced is a disaster waiting to happen.

2) Gold - here. Great chart on 89% loss line.
A very promising direction on gold, of course, which is in line with (1) above.

Prepare for some fun. Take a look at VIX:
All supports are out at this stage and risk appetite is falling since the beginning of the year. Bonds rallying, S&P is taking on water. The only way from here for the likes of Gold is up, for DJA and S&P - down. Back to that 89% rule line in (2) above.

Economics 24/08/2009: Oil and Gold – an imperfect hedging tango

In the last bout (right before the collapse of the financial markets in Autumn 2008) much of the inflation was driven by the rapidly rising commodities prices. These prices were in turn linked to the price of oil. Thus, one can naturally think of oil as an inflation hedge. In contrast, the traditional inflation risk management instrument – gold – has hardly kept up with oil prices in the short run back in 2008. So there is a natural question that arises in this context – which is a better inflation hedge? Well, for each month in 2008, in year on year (yoy) changes, oil actually beat gold as a counter-inflationary asset. Only this year have gold and crude exchanged places. But this is optics.

First, both gold and oil prices show some serious medium range inter-annual volatility. This volatility is driven by speculative motives, but also by real demand for oil as a storable commodity that is an input into physical economy. So to abstract away from seasonality and active speculative trading, consider both commodities prices in terms of annual averages. Setting 1968 price index for gold and oil to be equal 100, and adjusting for inflation, chart below shows that both commodities are way off their historic highs and that even in 2008 the two commodities were nowhere near their long term maxima when it comes to a cumulative appreciation since 1968.

Pre 1970, average price of gold ranges around $38-39. It peaked in 1980 at $615 and then got stuck in the flat until 2007 when it breached the 1980s high in nominal terms. The average price of gold was $872 in 2008. Similarly, crude peaked at an average price of $91 a barrel last year. But despite nominal appreciation, oil is still way below its inflation-adjusted highs. Ditto for gold. To do this, gold needs to be at nearly $1,610 and oil at $98-100 per barrel. These are steep, but just how steep? Well, for oil this means roughly an 8% appreciation on 2008 annual average. But for gold this implies a whooping 84% appreciation on same benchmark.

Now, in annual terms, average annual inflation since 1968 was 3.6%. Median annual return to gold exceeded CPI by 1%, while oil did the same by 1.7%. So cumulative gain for oil in real terms since 1968 has been around 96.3%, and for gold it was almost a half of that, or 48.9%. Given that oil took a nose dive in 2009 while gold held its ground, long term comparisons suggest that

• Either oil is oversold today and thus has a mean-reverting potential of ca 45% on current prices to ca $105-110 barrel range (chart below shows WTI, $pb)

• Or gold had been under-bought in the historic past and thus has an oil-inflation trend-reverting potential of ca 50-75% on 2008 average annual price (chart below shows gold price in $ per oz, daily close)

I happen to think that both are likely, though in much more moderate terms, with oil heading for $85pb in 2010 and to $95pb over medium term (5 years), while gold heading for $1,050-1,100 range in 2010 and to $1,300 over the medium term. That would imply annualized gains in oil price of roughly 4.8% and in gold price of ca 6.5% before inflation. Thus, assuming a reasonably well-underpinned by the current money creation worldwide inflation averaging ca 3% pa, this would result in oil beating CPI by 1.8% annually, and gold doing the same by ca 3.5% pa. Why?

For two reasons:

1. Oil demand is going to be imperfectly matched to inflation hedging and short term volatility due to supply/demand for physical commodity will be weighing in oil as a hedge instrument in the current environment where investors are relatively jittery about the markets;
2. Gold simply has to catch up with oil over medium term.

One potential downside to this is continued orderly, but nonetheless pronounced disposal of gold holdings by the Central Banks of the more fiscally strained countries and the IMF. Although China and possibly India are likely to start picking up some of the rising supply through ‘private’ or invisible sales from one CB to another, this unwinding of gold reserves will weigh on the markets.

Per short term oil price volatility a recent example is in order. About two weeks ago, the US crude reserves have been reported to have fallen some 8.4mln barrels, prompting a serious spike in oil to $72.5pb. At the same time, gasoline supplies fell by 2.1 million barrels, distillate stocks declined by 700,000 barrels and refinery utilization reached 84% above analysts’ expectations of ca 83% - in a sign of tighter supply.

In medium term (3-5 years horizon) – watch US Oil Fund (USO) for oil.

On gold side, watch the correlation in gold and stocks, with gold tending to max just ahead of stocks lows (note July/August 2008, October 2008, March 2009 and so on in chart above). In my view, we are set for another local maxima to be tested by gold in months before the end of October 2009.