OK, Yes, I'm a Gold Bug

More of a silver bug, actually. But a metal bug. I like having the real stuff, and I particularly like having it already broken down into known increments that are reasonably spendable (or will be, as more and more people decide that precious metals make more sense than paper backed only by “the full faith and credit of” a bunch of politicians).

If you’ve seen gold and silver prices lately, you know that a one-ounce silver or even a 1/10th-ounce gold coin is a little much for normal exchange. So, I’m a big fan of Ron Helwig’s Shire Silver — laminated cards with small quantities of metal in them (0.5. 1 or 5 grams of silver; 0.05, 0.1 or 0.5 grams of gold):

Perfect even now for buying and selling stuff at freedom movement events. As fiat currency continues its unstable, decaying orbit around the black hole of politics, I expect it to come into use for more routine transactions.

You should probably get some yourself. If you’re interested in doing business with it on a regular basis, you might consider becoming a Shire Silver merchant (Disclosure: I’ve been one — through Rational Review News Digest — for more than a year).

Redistributing Wealth

In an axiomatic sense, wealth is always distributed in some way. Likewise, any transfer or exchange of wealth is a redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth comes in two forms: coercive and voluntary. The former method of redistribution is associated with socialism and, more generally, any statist attempt at transferring the goods or wealth of an individual or group to another individual or group. The latter method of redistribution is associated with capitalism and, more generally, any form of voluntary exchange.

It is obvious, then, that wealth is continuously redistributed. People constantly desire to trade some portion of what they have for something else they desire more. Thus, redistribution of wealth occurs in the free market, and often occurs via the mechanism of exchange. However, there are some instances when wealth is redistributed freely, such as when a parent provides for his child in exchange for nothing. More generally, though, the redistribution of wealth in a free society usually requires exchange.

Therefore, what those who clamor for the redistribution of wealth actually desire is an option to acquire wealth by force in exchange for nothing. They may not be inherently opposed to trade, nor may they be totally desirous of charity—particularly if that charity has behavioral strings attached. Rather, they simply desire to have the option to have wealth redistributed to them without having to offer anything in exchange.

Liquids-Rich Companies Will Weather the Dry Spell: Luc Mageau

With the winter warmer and drier than previous years, natural gas companies are suffering from depressed prices. However, Raymond James Analyst Luc Mageau identifies liquids-rich companies that can create profits with or without a natural gas price rally. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Mageau explains how to use well payout rates to evaluate a company’s longer-term cash flow.

The Energy Report: With Brent Crude trading at about US$110 per barrel (bbl) and natural gas futures trading at 10-year lows, are you leaning more heavily toward oily names than you did in 2011?

Luc Mageau: Absolutely. In fact, although gas prices have been reduced to around the $2.50 level, it still seems like the picture could get worse before it gets better. Current natural gas storage is at ~3.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf); that’s a full 0.4 Tcf fuller than an average winter. The reason we have such a glut of gas is the winter has not been co-operating. Basically, we rely on winter to post the bulk of the withdrawals throughout any given year—in the last few years, we have truly been relying on a cold winter to bail us out of the storage glut and we’ve been lucky. On average we normally see ~150-200 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas withdrawn per week. With the warm weather we’ve been getting, our average withdrawals from storage have been closer to 80-100 Bcf during the 2011/2012 winter season—that translates to a lot of excess gas. Making matters worse, the weather is not expected to get colder. This means we could be in store for several more weeks of warmer-than-average winter, and given we only have a handful of weeks left in the official “withdrawal season,” we’re running out of time to get back to normal storage.

Historically, when weather fails to bail us out of the glut we have seen production shut-ins to curtail the problem. This time, I think we could be in a slightly different boat—and we can blame the price of oil for that. You see, over the last several years, low natural gas prices have forced gas producers to derive cash flow from other sources. One major source has been incremental extraction of natural gas liquids (NGLs). NGLs are heavier hydrocarbons that are produced in conjunction with natural gas. These products typically trade closer to the oil price. Given the wide discrepancy of oil:gas pricing, NGLs can account for a good chunk of the effective price a gas producer receives. What this means is that even when gas prices are below $2.50, the NGL component now being realized from produced gas is allowing a lot of gas that would have historically been shut in to remain marginally economic, and as such, still on production. So we are seeing less shut-in production than historically, and even if we were to begin shutting in production now we would need nearly 6 Bcf/d to be shut-in for the bulk of 2012 just to get back to normal storage levels—a situation that seems unlikely.

The bottom line is that we continue to expect gas prices will stay depressed and oil prices to continue to thrive and as a result, oil stocks should continue to outperform in general.

TER: Should investors stay away from the gas-heavy names or simply gas-heavy names with liquids-poor content?

LM: Some companies are certainly offering good value today and just because gas prices are low right now doesn’t mean that there are no investable ideas. This being said, dry gas companies (i.e. those with liquids infused plays below 20 bbl/MMcf) are really having their cash flows squeezed right now. Netbacks for companies in this camp have been compressed to mid-single digits and even keeping production levels flat without adding a significant amount of debt is hard. On the other hand, companies with liquids rich gas plays that generate 50 bbl/MMcf or more can boost the realized price of their gas by $4.00/mcf. In fact, given the price of liquids, these companies were already generating in excess of 80% of cash flow from the liquids anyway, so the price of gas does not make that much of an impact on the overall value of the company. So if you are looking for gas exposure, it would probably be safer to look at companies that have exposure to these types of plays. In our coverage universe, Crocotta Energy Inc. (CTA:TSX) is probably the best positioned in this camp.

TER: Let’s talk some more about your coverage universe. Crocotta Energy relies heavily on its liquids-rich assets. Please tell us about how one of those assets, Edson Bluesky, is insulating Crocotta from low gas prices.

LM: Crocotta has been working this asset up for the bulk of 2011 and it has been having very good success. In all it holds ~36,000 acres of land here and the key play so far has been the Bluesky formation. The reason that this play is exciting is because it truly is liquids rich—getting anywhere from 50-100 bbl/MMcf of NGLs. What this means is that even though Crocotta is a gas-weighted producer, at $2.00/mcf gas prices the company can generate netbacks in the mid-$20/barrel oil equivalent (boe) range (compared to low- to mid-single digits for most gas companies). The wells typically cost ~$5.8M, so they are expensive, but considering the amount of wells already drilled on the land base, they are low risk and generate an NPV of over $4M even at $2.00/mcf gas (compared to drier gas wells that would be posting closer to $0-1M NPVs). So the company is still making plenty of money even at these gas prices and it still offers the option on gas prices for the future.

TER: Crocotta exited 2011 with production of about 6,500 boe/day, well ahead of both the company’s exit guidance range and your expectation of about 6,000 boe/day. In fact, those fourth-quarter results brought Crocotta’s 2011 average production up to 3,725 boe/day. What sort of production are you expecting in 2012? And will that be enough to reach your 12-month target of $4.75?

LM: Our numbers have the company exiting 2012 north of 8,000 boe/d—one-third of that production is expected to be oil and liquids. The growth is primarily expected to come from Bluesky liquids rich wells, but we’ve also built in some wells for the company’s Cardium lands at Edson. Late in 2011 the company announced its first Cardium well in the Edson area had an initial production rate of 1,000 boe/d (60% oil). This was previously a formation that we were not anticipating much growth from so there is a significant opportunity for the company to build an oil-weighted portfolio of wells if it can show that this is repeatable—and based on what we’ve seen, we think that’s possible. So our $4.75 target price is premised on the production profile through 2012 and 2013. In fact, for 2013, even at $2.00/mcf gas the company could post cash flow of $0.90/share so it is currently trading at just 3.8x, lower than its gas-weighted peers.

TER: You cover Cequence Energy Ltd. (CQE:TSX), which recently conducted some tests on several new wells at Simonette, Alberta, which is part of the Montney Shale play. One new well tested at 4.8 MMcf/d and 216 bbl/day of condensate over 15 days, which would correspond to a liquids yield of about 45 bbl/MMcf. That means that these wells would be economic even at $2.50 natural gas. What’s your outlook for Cequence given these testing results versus lower than expected oil-equivalent production in 2011?

LM: We believe the recent Montney well results continue to prove that the Simonette area is highly prospective for natural gas production growth. This combined with the additional take-away capacity from the pending Alliance Pipeline connection adds comfort that growth will continue through 2012. You are certainly correct; at 45 bbl/MMcf the company’s Montney wells continue to be economic at $2.50/mcf gas. The unfortunate take-away, however, is that the payout ratios on these wells are expected to be approaching three years. This means that it essentially takes three years for the company to re-coup the money it put into the ground to drill the well, and for a junior company, this makes sustained growth at current prices difficult.

TER: Cequence says that once it connects to the Alliance Pipeline and the Aux Sables liquids extraction facility, which is slated to happen in April 2012, its operating netbacks from Simonette production would reach $30.31/boe. Do those numbers line up with yours and, if so, do you expect that to significantly move the share price?

LM: It all comes down to your view of natural gas prices. We are currently forecasting $3.25/mcf gas for 2012—which sounds more bullish than it actually is. Based on that, we have netbacks in the $18/boe range. If current prices were used instead, i.e. $2.25/mcf gas, netbacks would go to $10/boe.

TER: What’s your 12-month target on Cequence?

LM: We are at $3.50—but again that is premised on $3.25/mcf gas for 2012.

TER: A smaller name that you cover is Renegade Petroleum Ltd. (RPL:TSX.V). Renegade exited 2011 with higher-than-expected average production of 3,625 boe/day, which resulted in year over year growth of 73%. Renegade has set its 2012 production guidance at between 4,000 and 4,200 boe/day and that should result in another year of significant growth. Please tell our readers about why you believe Renegade will reach its production guidance and why you raised your 12-month target to $5.00.

LM: Renegade certainly did have a great year in 2011. After it rolled up its JV partner in the Viking (Petro Uno), it went to work post-breakup and its production growth number definitely reflects that. For 2012 we expect the company is going to put a bit more emphasis on southeast Saskatchewan, though, and we had previously been a bit more conservative on our view of the potential there. We were previously forecasting another break-up season similar to what we saw in 2011—wet and prolonged. But the very unseasonably warm summer, combined with the almost nil snow accumulation in the region is making things look much better than originally expected. Now anything can change—especially the weather—but with a slightly longer drilling season than originally expected, we were able to bring up our production estimate a bit to an average of 4,070 boe/d for 2012, about the midpoint of guidance. With our oil price deck at $100 WTI for 2012, our cash flow estimates and target followed suit.

TER: Things don’t look quite so rosy for Open Range Energy Corp. (ONR:TSX). Most of Open Range’s production base is from natural gas and its production is slated to contract in 2012. Nonetheless, you still have a C$2.00 target on that name. Tell us about that one.

LM: Open Range is coming off of a stellar year in 2011. It successfully launched the spin-out of its Poseidon division, which continues to be a strong performer. However, with that division gone, the bulk of the company’s opportunities are in dry gas, meaning NGLs under 20 bbl/MMcf. The company also has ~$50M of debt on a $75M line and is planning six gross wells for this year. So facing the current commodity price environment, the company is really in cash-conservation mode and as a result has forecasted production to shrink through this year—a stark contrast to the massive growth it was leading investors to believe for most of 2011 (its presentation projected a 2012 exit rate of ~10,000 boe/d). Now the assets that the company has are actually quite good—as far as gas assets go. The company has primarily one consolidated land block in the deep basin, an area that characteristically has large gas reserves and low operating costs, but it also has very low liquids yields so the netbacks are at $2.25/mcf gas. Our $2.00 target is premised on a $3.25/mcf gas price and to be fair, for gas investors looking at options on the commodity, Open Range is certainly a good candidate, however we believe gas markets will remain weak for some time, likely putting more near-term pressure on the name—we’ve had the company rated market perform since the spin-out, which really reflects our neutral-to-negative outlook on natural gas prices.

TER: And, finally, Strategic Oil & Gas Ltd. (SOG:TSX), which completed a $40M equity financing in December to give the junior a total of C$42 million in the bank. How is Strategic planning to use that cash?

LM: Strategic has two core light oil assets; the Maxhamish Chinkeh sand horizontal play in northeast BC, where Legacy is the operator, and its Steen River lands in northern Alberta. At Steen River, the company is the operator and has a 100% working interest in 70,000 net acres, so it has a lot of flexibility to accelerate the program here as well as a significant amount of running room for future drilling. There are at least three different oil-prone zones being targeted at Steen, so this is where we see the company getting the leverage for growing production in 2012. With that in mind, the company has provided a $60M capital program for 2012 that focuses on Steen. It has two rigs running there now, and plans to drill 20 (17 net) wells in 2012. Although the focus is still on the high-impact vertical Keg River wells, which get initial production rates of about 200 bbl/d for $1.5M, the company is also going to continue to advance its more “resource-style” horizontal play in the Sulphur point formation, and test out some new zones and play concepts in the area. Given that this program is pretty front-end weighted (there are nine wells planned for Q112), we think the company could use its balance sheet to expand this program through the back half of the year if it continues to achieve results like it has been.

TER: Despite the equity dilution in December, over the course of 2012 you expect Strategic’s share price to almost double to C$1.50. How is that going to happen?

LM: Strategic spent a lot of time on its Steen River assets in 2011. A lot of this was laying the technical foundation on which to build a strong portfolio of oil drill prospects. It successfully tested the horizontal Sulphur Point oil play, and it built out and de-risked its Keg River locations. With its balance sheet now all cashed up, we see 2012 really as a year where it focuses on aggressive drilling at Steen River. Since these wells can get IP rates of 100—200 bbl/d of oil and the capital costs of drilling them are low, it is able to really step on the accelerator pedal quickly. So we think that both cash flow and production will grow substantially through the year and into 2013. Right now we have it spending its guidance of $60M in 2012 and exiting the year with production of ~3,000 boe/d, a pretty strong growth profile when you compare it to 2011 exit production of 1,880 boe/d.

TER: Do you have some parting wisdom to impart to investors looking to enter this space for the first time in 2012?

LM: We are still constructive on oil prices, and with our view on NGL pricing and yields, we remain very cautious on the outlook for gas prices, so obviously we would overweight oil-focused names. That said, there are gas-weighted names that have currently good liquids yields with the ability to weather low gas prices and reallocate capital away from dry gas. Crocotta Energy is an exceptional example of this—the company is getting a liquids yield of 50-80 bbl/MMcf, which means that not only can it weather low natural gas prices, the bulk of cash flow is already coming from the liquids so the wells are very economic even at gas prices with a $1-handle. Second, we would certainly look to invest in companies that have the financial resources (balance sheet and cash flow) to fund an oil- or liquids-focused drilling program in order to take advantage of current oil prices. To put this in perspective—a typical oil well will pay-out in ~1.5 years, which means that all the money a producer puts in the ground they get back in 1.5 years—everything else after that is profit. Gas wells on the flip side can have pay-outs longer than three years. For a junior company, the ability to recycle cash by putting it in the ground, getting it out and repeating the process is paramount—particularly given that the amount they have is very limited. So to that end, junior companies with high oil weightings that we especially like include companies like Renegade Petroleum, Strategic, and Twin Butte Energy for their growth profiles and valuation. However, the top pick in our space right now is Twin Butte Energy, which recently closed the acquisition of Emerge. It pays a healthy dividend of 7%, has the potential to outperform its guidance, and has a very conservative payout ratio for 2012 if light-heavy differentials and oil prices remain within reason of current levels.

TER: Thanks for sharing your insights with us.

LM: My pleasure.

Luc Mageau joined Raymond James in March 2006. He is responsible for covering junior and intermediate oil and gas producers. Prior to joining the firm, Luc was employed as a commercial lender at a major bank and as a research analyst at a U.S.-based equity research firm. He has a bachelor of commerce degree from the University of Alberta (2001) and holds the CFA designation.

Economic Events on February 3, 2012

The Monster Employment Index for January was released today, and the index moved down 7 points from last month to a value of 133, but is 9% higher than last January’s value.

At 8:30 AM EDT, the Employment Situation report for January will be announced, and the consensus for non-farm payrolls is an increase of 135,000 jobs compared to 200,000 in the previous month, the consensus for the unemployment rate is that it will remain at 8.5%, the consensus average hourly earnings rate is expected to increase 0.2%, and the consensus for the average workweek is 34.4 hours.

At 10:00 AM Eastern time, the Factory Orders report for December will be released.  The consensus is that there was an increase of 1.5% in orders from the previous month.

Also at 10:00 AM Eastern time, the ISM non-manufacturing index for January will be released.  The consensus estimate is that increased by 0.7 points to a value of 53.3, and will continue to signal economic growth as it remains above the mid-point of 50.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Is Socialism an Ex Ante Rationalization?

A while back, I asked if libertarian political theory was an ex post rationalization used simply to justify the cause of freedom without actually explaining why it worked. It seems reasonable to ask a similar question of socialism: is socialist political theory* simply a rationalization for pursuing a certain course of action?

At first blush, the answer is no. Socialist theory is pretty robust and generally accepted as sound. For example, one tenet of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, wherein it is theorized that poverty can be eliminated by taking money from rich people and giving it to those classified as poor. This proposition is so self-evidently true that it borders on being tautological.Yet, every time the redistribution of wealth is put into practice, it generally tends to not eliminate poverty. Of course, poverty can never be eliminated if it is defined in relative terms. But, even when poverty is defined absolutely, there are still some who persist in living in poverty, and no government program is apparently able to change that fact.

Thus, it is to be concluded that socialism is nothing more than an ex ante rationalization. How else to explain its unmitigated and predictable failure? Incidentally, the reason why socialism continues to fail in practice is simply due to the fact that the theory is predicated on artificial class constructions, and can therefore never truly and properly account for individual motivation. It should be note, though, that libertarian political theory accounts for individual motivation but is still incapable of explaining why humans do what they do.

At any rate, the easily observed fact of the matter is that socialist political theory has little grasp of reality, and continues to fail miserably. It only use is in convincing people that there is a reason to try collectivism in spite of its miserable and repetitive failures.

* Please note that “socialist political theory” is a broad term that covers any political movement that generally tends toward increasing government power instead of limiting it. This stands in contrast to libertarian political theory, which refers to any political movement that attempts to limit government power instead of increasing it.

Great Deals on Gold and Silver: James Turk

James Turk GoldMoney Founder and Chairman James Turk knows how to find great deals on gold and silver. He claims that the 2012 bottom for gold came during the first week in January. If the year’s low is already history and if his projection that gold will hit the $2,000/oz mark within three months is on target, you do the math. “Gold is way too cheap,” he tells The Gold Report in this exclusive interview.

The Gold Report: Given the volatile 2011 market and the fact that gold trades at seasonally lower prices in the summer, James, what led you to say you believe we’ve already hit the low for the gold price in 2012?

James Turk: We started this year in an unusual position. Normally, we see seasonal strength in the last quarter. We didn’t get it. We’d been in a correction since the high in silver back in April 2011. The high in gold came during the summer, which was very unusual, but basically both metals have been moving sideways. Starting from the end of a correction, value is more important than seasonality. Clearly, gold and silver both represent good, undervalued assets at the moment.

The other factor is continuing problems in the financial system. The European banks are still on the brink and many American banks are in a similar situation. Questions about the currency—whether the euro will survive—and the ongoing sovereign debt issue will cause people to look at the precious metals. I’ve said we saw the low in the gold price the first week of January, and the further into the year we get without going lower, the greater the probability that it was, in fact, the low for the year.

TGR: Considering all the issues you mentioned that existed last summer as well, why didn’t that seasonal strength return late in 2011?

JT: An interesting thing about markets is that nothing works all of the time. You just have to respond accordingly in looking at how things are going to unfold. That’s why I think the low has been made already.

TGR: You also mentioned in a recent interview that you thought gold could get above $2,000/ounce (oz) in the next three months. With all the monetary issues on the table, not to mention a few new wrinkles, what will make the gold price pop up so much in such a short period of time? What’s the catalyst?

JT: I can’t tell you what the event will be, but I look at charts and things of that nature to give me an indication as to when something’s ready to move. The fact that we’ve been in a correction for several months is one indication that something will happen. Whether it’s a bank failure or a problem with the euro or some European bank, you can’t really tell. But whatever is coming, the markets reflect it. It’s like following footprints in the sand on the beach, leading a certain way. The charts and the circumstances are telling me to expect a big pop in the gold price this year.

TGR: And would it correct immediately afterward?

JT: Not necessarily, because at some point, the currencies will collapse. When they do, gold won’t correct. It will just keep going up.

TGR: So are you projecting currency collapses within the next few months?

JT: No, I’m not, but they will at some point. It could happen in the next several months; it could happen in the next several years. We are in a bubble, not a gold bubble but a fiat currency bubble. The belief that fiat currencies have value will be tested. I think fiat currencies, which are backed by nothing but government promises, will collapse, and gold will return to center stage in global commerce. When it does, expect a straight shot up. It may be three months or three years. Take it month by month and see how it goes. Don’t try to trade the gold market. Continue to build your gold and/or silver holdings, and when all is said and done, you’ll be very, very happy.

TGR: You’ve also indicated that you expect the U.S. to get into hyperinflation, citing examples of currencies in the Weimar Republic, Argentina and Zimbabwe. None of those currencies was world reserve currencies as the U.S. dollar is. Would the world allow the U.S. dollar to go into hyperinflation?

JT: The world can’t do anything to stop it. President Nixon’s Treasury secretary, John Connally, captured it perfectly when he told one of his European counterparts, “The dollar is our currency but your problem.” That’s still true 40 years later.

The dollar continues to be the world’s problem, and the U.S. government isn’t doing anything to make the dollar worthy of the esteemed position of being the world’s reserve currency. There is no pressure that can be brought to bear on the dollar that would cause the U.S. government to reverse course and go in the right direction.

We are seeing countries around the world accumulating more gold in case the dollar collapses, which is what individuals should be doing as well. Countries around the world are also taking other steps to protect themselves. For instance, they’re entering bilateral trade agreements that don’t involve U.S. dollars. China has been doing a lot of bilateral trade agreements that completely exclude the dollar. India and Iran, of all places, just recently announced an agreement whereby they’re going to use gold for transacting.

TGR: In King World News in October you wowed the world with the Gold Money Index discussion and how it shows that the fair price of gold is really $11,000/oz. You based your calculation on the combined total of central banks’ foreign exchange reserves divided by their gold holdings. Why do you use only foreign-exchange reserves in that calculation and not total reserves?

/Turk2-1-1.jpg

JT: Because gold is international money, and I’m trying to focus solely on the monetary component. Instead of moving gold around as they did under the classical gold standard, the central banks have been using foreign currencies as a money substitute. If you’re using a money substitute, the money itself should be equivalent to gold. The real factor underlying all of this is that gold is way too cheap, and accepting paper currencies instead of gold is the wrong thing to do, which is what the Gold Money Index shows.

/Turk2-1-2.jpg
So it’s basically reestablishing gold’s role in the international monetary system and what its value would be based on historical evidence, particularly from the 1960s and 1970s, when the index was working much more clearly. Over the last 20 years, the gap between the fair value of gold and its actual price has become huge.

TGR: Have you gone back to 1900 with that calculation?

JT: It’s hard to get all the data, but the logic is basically there. I’ve gone back prior to 1900, not with the Gold Money Index, but with my Fear Index, looking at domestic money supplies. The Fear Index is at about 3% now, so gold today backs about 3% of the domestic money supply. When Sir Isaac Newton devised the classical gold standard, an average of 40% of the monetary system’s value was based on gold and 60% on paper. That we’re so far below the guideline he established is an indication to how undervalued gold is relative to all the paper money systems out there.

TGR: You mentioned using foreign-exchange reserves because they mimic the way gold was transferred under the gold standard. But wasn’t it part of being on the gold standard that each currency unit reflected a gold component?

JT: Yes. But, the Fear Index and the Gold Money Index distinguish between domestic and international money supplies. That’s why I was saying this 40% on the Fear Index is the historical norm.

TGR: Your Gold Money Index is interesting, and the $11,000/oz number grabs a lot of attention, but maybe the real underlying question is whether this ratio is really relevant.

JT: What makes the ratio relevant is that it had relevance up until the last 20 years. The fair price and the actual price have separated so far due to government intervention—attempts to cap the price of gold. Governments intervene in the gold market for the same reason they intervene in any market. When they don’t like the outcome, they try to change things around. This index gives people an opportunity to understand how undervalued gold is.

The index is relevant, too, in that it makes it very clear that we’re living in a bubble. How can something work for so many years and then all of a sudden not work? It’s because we’re in a bubble.

TGR: Didn’t it work for so many years because we were on a gold standard?

JT: Exactly, but we went off the gold standard in 1971, and even in the 1970s, that ratio worked. It continued to work in the early 1980s. Then it stopped working.

TGR: So it wasn’t until they started printing money, and expanding the M1—increasing the money supply—that the imbalance grew.

JT: Yes. The attributes that gave gold value and made it money in the first place did not disappear, but they were ignored or forgotten. Gold was marginalized. Then in recent years, people started to rediscover those attributes and realized that gold is very, very useful.

At some point the price of gold will just keep rising and not stop. That’s when the currency collapses. And while we can’t predict when it will happen, people have to reach one of two conclusions. Either 1) monetary history is not relevant and the fiat currency system will survive, or 2) monetary history is relevant, this is a bubble, the fiat currency system will collapse and gold is much undervalued.

TGR: There’s no doubt about which conclusion you’ve reached. You’ve also made it clear that while you can’t predict when the fiat currency will collapse or when hyperinflation will kick in, you recognize where the path we’re going down leads. Still, as an astute historian of the currencies, could you tell us how long it took from the tipping point to all-out hyperinflation in the countries that experienced it?

JT: Once you hit the tipping point, it’s usually six months before the currency is finished. To give you an example, I went to Argentina in 1991 to study what was happening there. Hyperinflation appeared to be brewing. The currency, the austral, was linked to the U.S. dollar at 14:1 in January, and the link was broken. During the first week of May, when I arrived, the austral had already devalued to 64:1 against the dollar. When I left at the end of the week, it was 96:1 and by December, it was 10,000:1. So I was right there at the tipping point.

But here’s the interesting thing. Hyperinflation is first recognized outside the country before it’s recognized within, because foreigners own another country’s currency by choice. If they don’t like what’s going on, they sell that currency and move into something else. Where we are with the U.S. dollar, so many indications suggest that internationally we’ve hit the tipping point, but not yet within the U.S., where people are still getting paid in dollars and still spending dollars. Once the domestic tipping point is reached, it’s six months before the currency collapses.

TGR: Considering that you’re based in London now and presumably have greater insight into what’s happening with the euro and in the European Union than most of us, how do you see the situation in Europe vis-à-vis the U.S.?

JT: Last year, the euro was in the doghouse and the dollar was relatively strong. A couple of years ago, the dollar was in the doghouse and the euro was relatively strong. As a famous hedge fund manager in New York said, trying to pick between the currencies today is like trying to choose the best-looking horse in the glue factory. You really can’t say that the dollar is a good choice just because the euro is weak this year. It’s not. All fiat currencies have serious problems.

The problems differ to a certain extent, and at any moment in time—depending upon what different central banks are doing or how investor sentiment is moving—you could have relative strength in one or the other. But they’re all sinking relative to gold, so when deciding how to hold your liquidity, you have to consider gold bullion as one of the best choices simply because it’s done so well against all of the world’s major currencies for the past decade.

TGR: You’ve said many times that anyone who gets into precious metals needs to know why. You’ve suggested it’s either exposure to the silver and gold prices—in which case people can opt for instruments such as exchange-traded funds—or elimination of counterparty risk, which means they need tangible assets. Most of the rationale for people getting into precious metals these days is the insurance factor. Does protection against currency devaluation fall into either of those two categories?

JT: It falls into the tangible asset category. If you’re holding gold or silver for insurance, you’re holding bedrock assets with thousands of years of history. Come what may, they’re going to have value in the future.

TGR: The typical advice for people holding gold as insurance is to have 10% of your assets in gold. Maybe now that things are so volatile, 20% would be a better idea. But you’re even more aggressive on that.

JT: I am, but everybody has unique circumstances, so it’s hard to make sweeping generalizations. My basic view, though, is the older you are the more conservative you should be and, therefore, the more gold you should own. As a rule of thumb, use your age as a guide. If you’re 20, you may want 20% of your portfolio in gold and the rest in higher risk assets because you still have time to generate wealth as you get older. But once you’re older, you want to be conservative, and the way to be conservative in this environment is to own physical bullion. If you’re 60, you should have 60% of your portfolio in gold.

TGR: People look at gold now and see the wonderful returns—17% annually on average, in the U.S. alone. What about an investor who says, “Hey, I’m just going to invest in gold because it will give me a better return than equities”? Is that a bad way to look at it?

JT: No, but understand that gold doesn’t create wealth. It doesn’t have cash flow, it doesn’t have a management team and it doesn’t have a price/earnings ratio. It’s just a sterile, tangible asset. Gold doesn’t even really generate a return. When you talk about returns in gold, you’re actually talking about the lost purchasing power of the dollar. An ounce of gold today buys the same amount of crude oil it did 60 years ago. It didn’t increase your wealth. It basically just preserved your purchasing power over that period of time.

Even when the gold price rises, even at 17.7%/year on average over the last 11 years against the U.S. dollar, it’s not creating wealth. It’s taking wealth that already exists and is being held by people who own fiat currencies. That wealth is being moved from them to people who own gold. But gold is not a wealth-generating asset. It doesn’t grow anything.

TGR: A lot of vehicles that people put in their portfolios mimic stock indices, which also don’t create wealth, but they do create returns.

JT: If they mimic stock indices, they create wealth. Ultimately, if the shares themselves go up, what mimics those shares goes up. If the stock in these indices goes up, the wealth in the world expands because it generates cash flow. A company generates some goods or services that benefit people, and people are willing to use their hard-earned cash to buy those goods or services. Ultimately, the firm grows and, as a consequence, creates wealth.

TGR: Now that we’re talking about stocks, what’s the role of gold equities? You said that people should use their age when they think about what percentage of their portfolio should be in gold. Let’s say someone is 50. Would that 50% be in physical gold, or could it also include gold equities?

JT: Gold equities are different than gold. Gold equities are investments. Gold bullion is money. A portfolio has two components. The investment component focuses on risk versus return. The monetary component provides liquidity. When you sell an investment, you have liquidity, whether gold, a national currency or some mix. You hold that liquidity until you’re ready to use some of it to make your next investment or to buy goods or services.

But, mining stocks are fundamentally different than gold. A company you invest in has a balance sheet. It has a management team. Acts of God can destroy a mine. There are political risks and other considerations involved in owning mining stocks. Of course, that’s also how you actually create wealth—if you choose the right stock, you get a return. It’s also true that these stocks have exposure to the gold price in the sense that if the gold price goes up, the mining stocks probably will go up also. But even then, there’s no guarantee that the mining stocks will go up.

And remember, gold mining stocks are investments. Gold is money. Do you want liquidity or do you want an investment?

TGR: For those who want an investment, how do you feel about the gold equities? They do carry the additional risks you outlined but not so much the counterparty risk.

JT: I happen to be bullish on mining stocks because I think their bear market ended a few years ago. We’re just now retesting lows that had been made previously, and with the rise in gold and silver I expect this year, I think we’ll see the mining stocks go up as well.

In fact, if you choose the right mining stock and the gold price increases, the mining stock should rise by a higher percentage than gold itself. This has to do with the fact that a rising gold price improves the bottom line, increases the profit margin and ultimately results in a higher price/earnings ratio because the market senses that this is a major bull market, and the earnings and cash flow generated will lead the company to possibly increase dividends or something like that down the road.

As I indicated at the start of our conversation, though, an interesting thing about markets is that nothing works all the time. So while generally speaking, mining stocks rise by a higher percentage in a rising gold price environment, it doesn’t always work that way. For the last 10 years, gold has done very well, but the mining stocks have basically gone nowhere.

TGR: One of the themes of the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference seemed to be that gold stocks are a really good deal for that very reason, and that they’re on sale at bargain prices right now.

JT: I agree completely.

TGR: You’re also bullish on silver and apparently expect the silver/gold ratio to return to historic levels.

JT: I am very bullish on silver, but not because of that ratio. The ratio is basically just the outward measure used to show how silver is undervalued relative to gold. The underlying fundamentals suggest to me that the silver price is very cheap relative to how I sense the supply and demand characteristics.

TGR: We have minimal economic growth in Europe and the U.S., if any, and everyone seems to agree that China’s growth is slowing. With the world economy in slow motion, and silver being an industrial metal, what makes you so bullish on this commodity? What underlying fundamentals will drive the silver price up?

JT: It’s a good substitute for gold. Fifty-one ounces of silver do the same thing as one ounce of gold. Silver is a monetary asset that preserves and protects purchasing power. It’s the combination of the monetary and industrial demands that creates so much volatility in silver relative to gold. With gold, you have only the monetary demand. Economists call that demand inelastic, because people want to own gold regardless of the price. With silver, the demand is very elastic, meaning it’s very sensitive to changes in price.

TGR: If people want both metals in their portfolio, what kind of balance do you recommend?

JT: Two-thirds gold and one-third silver.

TGR: You’ve suggested that silver prices are going to rise faster than gold. Should that carry over to silver equities? Do you expect them to outperform gold equities?

JT: Yes, I do. Again, it’s difficult to make a sweeping generalization, but the odds are that silver stocks will do better than gold stocks in the foreseeable future.

TGR: You’ve covered some of the same points here that you made in your presentation at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference. What would you consider the key takeaways from that presentation?

JT: First of all, I hope people understand more clearly that gold is money, and that they view it from that perspective in order to properly assess whether it makes sense in their portfolios. Secondly, I hope people realize that despite the fact that the gold price has risen, it’s important to distinguish between price and value—they’re different things. The gold price has risen because the dollar is being debased, but gold remains very undervalued and it’s well worth it for you to continue to accumulate it. Work it into your family budget, and every month or two, buy more gold—and silver, if you’re so inclined. That leads to the third point. Don’t try to trade gold; save it. When you’re doing that, you’re saving sound money, and that’s a good thing.

TGR: When you started GoldMoney, you talked about a vision that at some point people would use GoldMoney units as currency to trade for services—a bit like using PayPal or an online bank but using your digital gold currency (DGC) instead. Do you still see that coming?

JT: Yes, it seems inevitable to me. In fact we’ve used the DGC payment feature, but recently stopped for a variety of reasons. It had not been used very actively anyway because of Gresham’s law—that bad money drives out good. In today’s world, people would rather spend fiat currency as a form of payment and save their gold and silver. That’s a good thing, for now, but that will change as fiat currency itself becomes less trusted and ultimately collapses.

James Turk, a renowned authority on gold and the precious metals markets, is founder and chairman of GoldMoney®, patented gold-based electronic money—digital gold currency (DGC)—that’s transferred over the Internet. In vaults in London, Zurich and Hong Kong, GoldMoney.com stores more than $2 billion worth of precious metals bullion, including platinum and palladium as well as gold and silver, for customers located in more than 100 countries. In August 2009, Turk’s Freemarket Gold & Money Report, which began in 1987 as a subscription-based investment newsletter, completed a transformation to become a free, web-based commentary. Accordingly, its name changed to the Free Gold Money Report (FGMR).

Turk is also a director of the GoldMoney Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to providing information on the role of gold and silver as money and currency and their importance to society. Co-author of The Collapse of the Dollar, Turk has specialized in international banking, finance and investments since his 1969 graduation from George Washington University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in international economics. He began his business career with The Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase), which included assignments in Thailand, the Philippines and Hong Kong, followed by several years with a prominent precious metals trader’s private investment and trading company, and, based in the United Arab Emirates, several more years managing the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority’s Commodity Department.

A fueling fable: Consumer protection issues with payments

On 22nd December 2011, we purchased petrol worth Rs.100 from an Indian Oil fueling station in Bombay using an ICICI Bank debit card. The receipt suggested that we could have saved a fuel surcharge of 2.5% had we used an Indian Oil Citibank credit card. Upon seeing this message, we asked the cashier at the petrol pump if we would be charged 2.5% over and above the Rs.100 that we paid for the fuel. The cashier assured us that only Rs.100 would be debited from the account linked to the card. The chargeslip and the receipt were:

The chargeslip
The receipt

A couple of days later, we viewed the account statement online and found that the relevant transaction had been recorded. A full week later, we observed that an additional charge of Rs.11.03 had been
debited from the account for the same vendor. Not only was the entry unusual, the charge did not match the 2.5% figure which was mentioned on the transaction receipt:

The statement

We wrote to the bank asking them to explain the transaction. The bank explained that for fuel purchased at non-HPCL petrol pumps, a surcharge of 2.5% of the fuel cost or Rs.10 (whichever is higher) would be levied. A service tax would be levied additionally.

There is a consumer protection issue here. After the account had been debited, and up until we sought a clarification from the bank, we were not made aware of the surcharge. The chargeslip gave a false impression of the amount being paid.

Upon delving further, we find various websites where people have complained about this surcharge being confusing. Further investigation revealed an interesting combination of participants:

  1. The surcharge on fuel is mentioned in the fine print in Terms and Conditions of a debit card.
  2. The bank that deploys the POS machine (acquiring bank being Citibank in our example), at the end of day, surcharges the higher of 2.5% or Rs.10 and sends it to the customer’s bank (issuer bank being ICICI Bank in this case).
  3. The issuing bank then creates a separate debit in the customer’s account for the surcharge
  4. The acquiring bank shares much of this surcharge back to Oil Marketing Company (Indian Oil in this example).
  5. Contrast this with typical debit card processing fees in India around 1.5%. In most cases, merchants will inform a customer before surcharging, and the value on the chargeslip is what the
    customer pays.
  6. Many banks apply these surcharges weeks or months after the transaction actually occurs, which helps ensure that most customers do not understand what is going on.

When paying for fuel in India with a debit card, the customer pays the surcharge by being misled, the Oil Marketing Company makes higher profits, the charge is administered in a non-transparent way, and is posted late when the customer may not even recall the
transaction. Thus, Government owned companies and banks have created a perverse incentive, whereby customers prefer to use cash rather than pay electronically.

Economic Events on February 1, 2012

The monthly Chain Store Sales report will be released today.  This report on sales in chain stores gives a look at the health of stores that make up about 10% of all retail sales.

The Challenger Job-Cut Report will be released at 7:30 AM Eastern time, providing an estimate of the number of layoffs in December.

At 8:30 AM Eastern time, the U.S. government will release its weekly Jobless Claims report. The consensus is that there were 370,000 new jobless claims last week, which would would be 7,000 less than the previous week.

Also at 8:30 AM Eastern time, the Productivity and Costs report for the fourth quarter of 2011 will be released.  The consensus is that non-farm productivity increased by 0.8% in the last quarter and labor unit costs increased 1.0%.

At 9:45 AM Eastern time, the weekly Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index will be released, providing an update on Americans’ views of the U.S. economy, their personal finances and the buying climate.

At 10:30 AM Eastern time, the weekly Energy Information Administration Natural Gas Report will be released, giving an update on natural gas inventories in the United States.

At 4:30 PM Eastern time, the Federal Reserve will release its Money Supply report, showing the amount of liquidity available in the U.S. economy.

Also at 4:30 PM Eastern time, the Federal Reserve will release its Balance Sheet report, showing the amount of liquidity the Fed has injected into the economy by adding or removing reserves.

Heennnrrryyyy GGeeoooorrrgggeeee!!!!!

OK..  I can’t resist this one.  It’s just floating up there.

EPR has this story on County Councilman Matt Drozd upset over the valuations of 4 vacant properties he owns in the city. Their inconsistent valuation is evidence that the whole assessment is kaput. He really seems to say that his new property valuations are evidence that the reassessment of all 580 thousand properties in the county must be wrong.

So let’s see.  Indeed Mr. Drozd owns 4 vacant properties on Perrysville Ave.  Technically one is owned by him, and 3 others by DROZD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. Here they are in the current assessment records.

The source of anger it seems is that all 4 properties were indeed assessed similarly at ($2000, $2100, $2,200 and $2,000) respectively.  Yet the new assessments:  $6200, $1000, $8000 and $8800.   Egads.  what is up with that?  We’ll come back to the $1,000 valued parcel in a minute, but the other prices all may make a lot more sense than you think.

First off, despite what is quoted in the article, they are not identical.. at least not in the parcel record which is consistent with the maps/shapes of these parcels..  The Sq. foot of each are: 2080, 2618, 2925 and 2800 .  So for the three of them, the assessment per square foot is much more consistent with the new valuations than with the old. An error?

Then…. Are these recent purchases?  No, it seems.  One bought in 1980.  Another couple  bought in 1994.  So they have remained vacant land in the city for literally decades. What were they bought for?  $450, $2,275, $2,275 and $4,323.  So he paid very different prices on them, maybe it makes sense they have slightly different values now?

Funny thing right when you think about it.  When he bought decades ago there was a land tax in the city of Pittsburgh so he likely had to pay the split tax which really hit vacant land harder than other properties.  He did well when the reassessment came in and got rid of the split tax in the city at the time.

So the property listed as $1000?  It is the only property listed as having no utilities and no off street parking.   I don’t see how 2 of them have off street parking as it is… All seem to have some hillside issues. Maybe if the good Councilman corrects the parking data on the property cards as they have shown for the last decade on those two properties he might get a big tax break administratively… no need to go to a formal appeal even.  Though what I really think is happening is that the low valued property is one that has signed away an easement for this billboard. If I am right it is another reason the parcels are not homogenous and clearly a disamenity for one of them… if I got the spot right which is unclear.

I’d ask for a commission on that advice for the savings he will get.. but it just can be much.  The county tax bill on each property now comes to about $9.38 per year.  With the 2% for paying early, and he does pay early each year it comes down to $9.19. Works out to 76 cents per month.  So 45 cents postage on the letter back to the county represents almost 5% of his entire tax bill.  I guess since he works for the county part-time, he might just drop it off and save the postage.

But this is the entire point of Henry George’s land tax.  Property in the city undeveloped is not supposed to happen.  So sitting on 4 city parcels for decades with taxes so low that there is no incentive to either develop or sell to someone who is willing to develop is exactly what you don’t want to happen for a city parcel.  Now with the new values jumping several hundred percent he might have to pay $25 in tax annually to the county.  Granted a bit more to the city and school district, but still.

and since everything gets tied together in Pittsburgh.  The nano-tempest over what percentage of Pittsburgh property owners who will see their taxes will go down with the reassessment??  Well, I excluded properties with previous values under $3K precisely to exclude the many parcels like these that just are not the point when you see the news interviewing long time residents worried they wont be able to pay their new tax bills.  These 4 parcels showed up as 4 datapoints in the other calculation.. not mine… so implicitly weighted the same as 4 life long residents elsewhere in city.  Does that make sense?

In the end though.. what looks to me like a prime example of the new assessments doing a lot better than previous values is turned on it’s head.  In this case the old values sure seem to have been done a bit superficially and clearly didn’t reflect what was different about the parcels.  Now that has been corrected, it is deemed to be evidence of gross error???

The Sad State of Mainstream Economic Analysis

I have a new post up at In Mala Fide. An excerpt:

To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley points out in a new article in International Security, “The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991.”

Yep, and the Roman Empire saw continuous growth right up until it declined. A trend line is not a guarantee of future performance, as anyone with half a brain knows. Yet this clown somehow thinks that this particular trend line will continue on its path. The best way to predict the economic future is to look at fundamentals of the economy (e.g. legal system, regulatory system, tax policy, etc.) and see what effect the current policies and practices will have on the future. Of course, this is significantly more difficult than identifying a trend line and extrapolating (probably because fundamental analysis requires thinking whereas trend analysis requires Excel and rudimentary data entry skills, which many trained monkeys are capable of performing), which is why most mainstream economists never bother with it.

The rest can be found here.