Wall Street Journal

All you need to read.

Wednesday’s sell off is being attributed to one massive sell trade of 31 tonnes on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange during Bernanke’s speech. There are rumours of a large US fund selling and also that the selling may have been by JP Morgan – rumoured to be acting on behalf of an Asian fund. Who sold off and why is less important than the fundamentals of the gold market. Absolutely nothing has changed regarding the fundamentals of gold which remain as sound as ever with broad based demand from store of wealth buyers, institutions and central banks internationally and especially in Asia. Good volumes have been seen on the Shanghai Gold Exchange in recent days. In India, lowest gold prices in a month saw strong physical bullion demand and physical buyers hunting for gold bargains to meet the wedding season demand. India remains the world’s largest buyer of the yellow metal (900 tonnes/year) but China is expected to outpace them this year according the World Gold Council. ETF holdings gained 238,674 ounces to a record high of 70.76 million ounces, showing that institutions and investors remain keen on gold. Also, options data has not changed since Wednesday’s price falls.

The positive PMI data would ordinarily result in some price weakness as would the testimony from Bernanke which suggested that the Federal Reserve's ultra loose monetary policies may not continue much longer. However, the scale of the selling and size of the price falls was unusual. Respected analysts such as legendary Jim Sinclair, John Embry and Jean-Marie Eveillard suggested that the sell off was due to manipulation by bullion banks. Sinclair said it was an “intervention” and was “window dressing” that long term bullion investors should not be concerned about as inflation was coming due to “QE to Infinity.” Embry said that it was a “smash down” and a “paper fiasco.” Jean-Marie Eveillard suggested that central banks may have intervened, as they are doing in fx and bond markets, and sold gold in volume into the market. It is of course very difficult to ascertain what caused the sharp falls in the precious metals yesterday however it would be naive to completely discount what Sinclair, Embry and Eveillard believe may have happened.

Currency debasement of all major currencies is happening today on a scale never before seen in history. Yet there continues to be a complete lack of awareness amongst the majority in the western world as to the risks posed by our currency monetary and financial system. There continues to be a lack of knowledge and indeed often wilful ignorance regarding gold. Indeed, some comments on gold are so ignorant of the historical and academic record that they have all the hallmarks of crude anti-gold propaganda – and will be seen as such in time. Gold is a proven safe haven asset and currency. Despite much recent academic evidence and the historical record showing this and despite voluminous articles, research and evidence, (evidence succinctly summarised in the video 'Gold Bullion or Cash'), there continue to be frequent anti gold outbursts by some of the most respected and trusted people in the western financial and economic world. Such attacks on gold have come from men such as Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and more recently Warren Buffett. Alan Greenspan correctly wrote in 1966 that "an almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions”. Today, an almost hysterical antagonism towards gold bullion as a diversification and as a store of wealth alternative to fiat currencies unites beneficiaries of the current status quo – both intellectual beneficiaries and material beneficiaries. That status quo is a massively leveraged and insolvent monetary, financial and economic system. 

2012 is proving to be the 'Year of the Central Bank'. It is an exciting celebration of all the wonderful maneuvers central banks can employ to keep the system from falling apart. Western central banks have gone into complete overdrive since last November, convening, colluding and printing their way out of the mess that is the Eurozone. The scale and frequency of their maneuvering seems to increase with every passing week, and speaks to the desperate fragility that continues to define much of the financial system today.... All of this pervasive intervention most likely explains more than 90 percent of the market's positive performance this past January. Had the G6 NOT convened on swaps, had the ECB NOT launched the LTRO programs, and had Bernanke NOT expressed a continuation of zero interest rates, one wonders where the equity indices would trade today. One also wonders if the European banking system would have made it through December. Thank goodness for "coordinated action". It does work in the short-term.... But what about the long-term? What are the unintended consequences of repeatedly juicing the system? What are the repercussions of all this money printing? We can think of a few.

We need to look to Europe now to see what TPTB have in store for us. This is the consummate problem, reaction, solution game being played for all the marbles. First, you get the problem “spiking interest rates for the peripheral countries.” Then the “reaction,” financial panic and fear. Finally the “solution.” The placement of unelected technocrats as the leaders of Greece and Italy with ties to all the power structure’s institution such as the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group and of course Goldman Sachs. It is like a coup that takes the shadow government from the shadows and puts them in your face. The reason that this is so key is because we are next. They don’t want to roll up everything at once. If they can get Europe safely consolidated then they will move here. That is when interest rates in the U.S. will spike (problem), and we get panic (reaction) and then the solution (bankster technocratic committees in charge and the IMF to the rescue, ie loss of sovereignty). This is the plan and I see it as clear as day.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Greek threshold for "successful" CAC passage is now expected to be just 66%, far below the 95% discussed yesterday. Says the WSJ: "The Greek government is aiming for a minimum participation of least two-thirds of bond holders in a planned debt exchange, a finance ministry official said Tuesday, with a formal offer on the exchange expected to take place by the end of this week. The deal, which aims to erase some EUR107 billion from Greece's debt burden, is part and parcel of a related EUR130 billion loan deal agreed to by euro-zone finance ministers in the early hours of Tuesday." As was extensively explained in our subordination piece from January, this is the number of bondholders that have to agree to the Collective Action Clause, which if passed successfully, would avoid a CDS trigger as it would be then deemed voluntary by ISDA who are more than happy to avoid any type of contagion causes by CDS triggers - they are after all a banker-owned organization. We ignore how a 66% participation rate is anything but a majority, let alone supposedly consensual. There is a bigger issue. And unfortunately by the Greek's actions, it shows they are in process of abrogating even more contractual rights in the form of foreign (UK-Law) covenant agreements. Either that, or the country is about to pay par to all UK-law bonds, both outcomes that threaten to put the entire second bailout in jeopardy.

A certain flavor of econometric model dominates conventional portfolio management and financial analysis. This model can be paraphrased thusly: seasonally adjusted economic data such as the unemployment rate and financially derived data such as forward earnings and price-earnings ratios are reliable guides to future economic growth and future stock prices....If this model is so accurate and reliable, why did it fail so completely in 2008 when a visibly imploding debt-bubble brought down the entire global economy and crashed stock valuations? Of the tens of thousands of fund managers and financial analysts who made their living off various iterations of this econometric model, how many correctly called the implosion in the economy and stock prices? How many articles in Barrons, BusinessWeek, The Economist or the Wall Street Journal correctly predicted the rollover of stocks and how low they would fall? Of the tens of thousands of managers and analysts, perhaps a few dozen got it right (and that is a guess--it may have been more like a handful). In any event, the number who got it right using any econometric model was statistical noise, i.e. random flecks of accuracy. The entire econometric model of relying on P-E ratios, forward earnings, the unemployment rate, etc. to predict future economic trends and future stock valuations was proven catastrophically inadequate. The problem is these models are detached from the actual drivers of growth and stock valuations.

While all the focus has been on Greece in recent days, the global nature of the debt crisis came to the fore yesterday and overnight. This was seen in the further desperate measures by the BOJ and Moodys warning that the UK could lose its AAA rating. Some of us have been saying for some years that this was inevitable but markets remain myopic of the risks posed by this. Possibly the greatest risk is that of the appalling US fiscal situation which continues to be downplayed and not analysed appropriately. President Obama unveiled a massive $3.8 trillion budget yesterday and he is to increase Federal spending by 53% to $5.820 trillion by 2022.  The US government is projected to spend over $6 trillion a year by 2022.  Still bizarrely unaccounted for is the ticking time bomb of unfunded entitlement liabilities - Social Security and Medicare, which Washington continues to deal with by completely ignoring them. While Washington and markets are for now ignoring the fiscal train wreck that is the US. This will change with inevitable and likely extremely negative consequences for markets – particularly US bond markets and for the dollar.

On Friday, we gave the skinny on some of the more amusing and/or aggressive key assumptions in the president's 2013 budget. Now hear the TOTUS, as presented via the president.

While we have excoriated the unemployable, C-grade, goalseeking, manipulative excel hacks at the CBO on more than one occasion by now (see here, here and here), it appears this time it is the administration itself which has shown that when it comes to predicting the future, only "pledging" Greece is potentially worse than the CBO. WSJ reports that "President Barack Obama's budget request to Congress on Monday will forecast a deficit of $1.33 trillion in fiscal year 2012 and will include hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed infrastructure spending, according to draft documents viewed by Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. The projected deficit is higher than the $1.296 trillion deficit in 2011 and also slightly higher than a roughly $1.15 trillion projection released by the Congressional Budget Office last week. The budget, according to the documents, will forecast a $901 billion deficit for fiscal 2013, which would be equivalent to 5.5% of gross domestic product. That is up from the administration's September forecast of a deficit of $833 billion, or 5.1% of GDP." Where does the CBO see the 2013 budget (deficit of course): -$585 billion, or a 35% delta from the impartial CBO! In other words between 2012 and 2013 the difference between the CBO and Obama's own numbers will be a total of $542 billion. That's $542 billion more debt than the CBO, Treasury and TBAC predict will be needed. In other words while we already know that the total debt by the end of 2012 will be about $16.4 trillion (and likely more, we just use the next debt target, pardon debt ceiling as a referenece point), this means that by the end of 2013, total US debt will be at least $17.4 trillion. Assuming that US 2011 GDP of $15.1 trillion grows by the consensus forecast 2% in 2012 and 3% in 2013, it means that by the end of next year GDP will be $15.8 trillion, or a debt-to-GDP ratio of 110%. Half way from where we are now, to where Italy was yesterday. And of course, both the real final deficit and Debt to GDP will be far, far worse, but that's irrelevant.

But, but, but...

• ECB NOT YET DECIDED ON WHETHER TO CONTRIBUTE TO GREEK DEBT RESTRUCTURING - EURO ZONE SOURCES

The V-Fib pattern formerly known as the EURUSD not happy.

Mohamed El-Erian, CEO and co-chief investment officer of bond fund giant PIMCO, said investors should be underweight equities while favoring "selected commodities" such as gold and oil, given the fragile global economy and geopolitical risks. Over the long term gold will reward investors who own gold as part of a diversified portfolio. Trying to time purchases and market movements is not recommended – especially for inexperienced investors.  New research from Credit Suisse and London Business School entitled ‘The Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2012’ continues to be analysed by market participants. The 2012 Yearbook investigates data from 1900 to 2011 and looks at how best to protect against inflation and deflation, and how currency exposure should be steered. The chief findings are that bonds do well in deflation and benefit from currency hedging, and equities are not a perfect inflation hedge, but benefit from international diversification.  The report shows that gold offers a timely inflation hedge and long term holders of gold should expect a positive correlation to inflation – gold is one of only two assets since 1900 to have positive sensitivity to inflation (of 0.26). Only inflation-linked bonds had more - 1.00, as expected. By contrast, when inflation rises 10%, bond returns have fallen an average 7.4%; Treasuries fell 6.2%, and equities lost 5.2%. Property fell by between 3.3% and 2%. Importantly, gold managed to increase its value across both extreme inflationary and deflationary scenarios. The academics from LBS analysed 2,128 individual years in 19 major countries (1900-2011), finding gold rose 12.2% in the most deflationary years - when average deflation was 26%.

Hardly a week passes without some washed out, discredited legacy media outfit bringing up the "China will bail out Europe" rumor from the dead if only for a few minutes, just so the robots which have now shifted from stocks to the EURUSD, ramp the currency higher and stop out the weak housewife hands. So while we know what the wishful thinking within the status quo (and those who wish to receive its advertising dollars) is, here is the reality. From Reuters which translates China's Financial News: "Chinese banks and companies in the northern port city of Tianjin have cut their exposure to Europe as the euro zone debt crisis festers. In a recent survey of 53 banks and 15 firms done by the local foreign exchange regulator, 11 banks said they had cut or stopped trade finance for European countries with high debt risk, suspended derivatives business with European banks, cut or stopped lending to foreign peers, particularly those from Europe, the newspaper said." Isn't this a little contrary to an atmosphere of mutual goodwill if not mutual bail outs? "They also reduced the issuance of euro-denominated wealth management products as a weakening euro resulted in negative earnings last year. The pullback by Chinese companies comes as European leaders have appealed to the Chinese government to support debt bailout funds. Although Chinese leaders have expressed confidence in European nations, they have also refrained from making firm financial commitments, urging Europe first to take further steps on its own." But why is Tianjin important: "Europe is Tianjin's second-largest exporting destination only after the United States. But local exporters are trying to sell more domestically or venture into emerging markets to cut their reliance on the euro zone, the newspaper said." Great work Europe: by slowly going broke, you are implicitly promoting the development of the Chinese middle class. And for that general act of goodness for humanity, well Chinese humanity, we salute you.

The adjustment to the population over the last decade was the second largest on record. However, the devil is in the details, as the population of 55 and older didn't really increase — they were always there but just not counted. The real concern is with the 16-24 age group. The longer that age group remains unemployed, the higher the probability that they will become long-term unemployable due to degradation of job skills. As we have seen in the recent reports, this age group has a much higher unemployment rate than any other category, and that doesn't bode well for economic strength in future as this group moves into lower wage-paying positions. Recent manufacturing reports show that one of the problems they face is finding "skilled" labor to fill available positions. The shift away from a production and manufacturing base over the last 30 years in the U.S. is now starting to take its toll. The problem, in trying to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., is not just education and skill training but also competitive advantages that the U.S. will have a difficult time overcoming in terms of underlying production and labor costs. Countries like China and Korea have no regulatory, environmental and minimum wage requirements to meet. Those are all additional costs that the U.S. must build into production costs, which limits our competitive potential. Outsourcing is going to be a long-term problem that will be very difficult to reverse.