Let Bullion’s Doubters Try to Explain Why

With December Gold closing on the $1340 target that we disseminated a while back, it’s time for a fresh perspective.  We wouldn’t want readers to get the glum idea that $1340 is as good as we think it’s going to get. Far from it. The way gold and silver have been acting lately, it feels more like bullion prices are just getting off the launching pad. Naturally, there’s no shortage of skeptics who would tell investors to hold off buying until precious metals have corrected some. You’d be wary about diving in yourself if you were a financial advisor who’d kept clients out of gold for the last decade, even as its price has more than quintupled. But we think any investor who is cautious on bullion right now is going to regret it when, come January, prices are at least 10-15% higher.

Japan threw everything it had at the yen, but it didn't stay down for long

Can we think of a reason for caution, just for the sake of argument? Not a good one – unless you perhaps believe that the central banks are about to jack up interest rates and smother the world’s tepid economy with a mega dose of austerity. The rationale most often cited these days for being cautious on bullion is that its price has simply been too hot not to cool down. Fair enough. But it is just as reasonable to ask why prices should cool down, given the unprecedented money blowout that is occurring throughout the world. And the word “blowout” is hardly an exaggeration.  Japan, its primacy as an exporter on the line, is in a fight-to-the-death to suppress the yen’s value relative to the dollar. But look at the chart above if you want to see how little they’ve accomplished. Although the Bank of Japan’s opening shot on September 15 obviously spooked speculators, causing the yen to suffer its biggest one-day loss in years, nearly all of the downdraft (in red) has been recouped since.

Smoot Hawley II

And guess who has become the world’s most aggressive buyer of yen of late:  the Chinese. After all, why would they sit idly by as a cutthroat competitor tries to rev up exports by manipulating its currency.  China has been accused repeatedly by the U.S. of doing the same thing, but it seems doubtful that America will get the Chinese to back down. How do you threaten a country that holds nearly a trillion dollars worth of your debt? Enacting punitive new tariffs appears to be the answer, at least in the shallow, economically ignorant minds of our political leaders.  But with the experience of the 1930s as precedent, we doubt that Smoot Hawley II will even come to a vote.

Meanwhile, with the dollar now crushing key technical supports with alarming regularity, it would appear that reality has finally turned against the flight-to-“safety” story that had captivated institutional money managers, if no one else. Under the circumstances, bullion investors would be wise to act aggressively. If there are good arguments for restraint at this time, we have yet to hear them.

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Steve October 9, 2010, 4:58 pm

    Let China buy land in Fee “Fee Simple Absolute”, and then raise the fee (fee = fife feod feud, feudal tenanture, peon, serf, slave). Only problem is that Americans may find out the truth about their own indenture, and loss of inheritance to the Lord of Lands; STATE OF__________(fill the blank)

  • ricecake October 4, 2010, 11:25 pm

    In terms of trade imbalance, half of the imbalance are imposed by the Americans to themselves. The problem is that the USA government don’t allow China to buy anything except Agriculture products and Commercial airplanes, or US Treasuries. lol.

    Chinese Premie Wen complained again and again about the US-China Trade imbalance. “What else can we buy from the Americans? We can’t always stuff ourselves with soybeans then take the Boeing day in day out.”

    China can’t even buy some bankrupt steel mills in Michigan. The US politicians were crying “If we allow the Chinese buy our steel mills, the Chinese will steal our steel technology.” They don’t realize that China Anshan steel corp already has the world’s best technology.

  • David October 4, 2010, 9:29 pm

    I’m not sure any punitive measures against gold will be effective for very long. Sure, they can drive it underground, but what are the consequences? The rest of the world will see the US as a horrible place to do business and back away. The people with gold (Chinese, Arabs, Russians, etc) will refrain from bringing gold here and, indeed, will work to remove even more of it from the US. The black markets that spring up will dwarf the “real economy”, ala the former Soviet Union, and gold will still become the defacto currency. If the so-called government is afraid of $10,000 gold, how are they going to react to $10 billion gold denominated in toilet-paper dollars as the rest of the world dumps dollars in their rush to the exits. In any event, the strong hands now holding gold and silver will never relinquish PM’s to such a predatory government. They will just send it deeper and deeper underground to await the coming rebirth of the US.

    • Keith October 4, 2010, 10:40 pm

      Well said, and let me add this for reinforcement. I’ll throw my gold and silver into a lake before I hand it over to the government. Promise.

    • Steve October 9, 2010, 4:53 pm

      Try legitimized water boarding – they do it to others, they will do it to you. You will tell them anything.

      ( “them” defined ‘corporate governmental democracy'”

  • Keith October 4, 2010, 7:30 pm

    I don’t believe it’s a question of how high bullion will go. Pick any number you can think of and it would be a realistic target. I’m not interested in price targets because of the amount of debt and money printing (whatever flavor you like) spells the end to the financial system as we know it.

    The main question is how high will bullion go before they step in and do something about, be it pegging, recall, sell only exchange rules, SDR backing, criminalization, ect, just to name a few. I’d like to hear what everyone thinks about golds future monetary or non-monetary role.

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 9:20 pm

      “I’d like to hear what everyone thinks about golds future monetary or non-monetary role.”

      I think it will happen as a matter of natural course. More recently though, I’ve taken a kinder view of paper because it doesn’t seem to me that either can work very well alone, in the long run.

      And here’s something I’ve yet to hear mentioned by any commentator or scholar…

      If congress has the power to change the weights (and actually, Western governments in general have this power in their own countries), then why didn’t they just do that, rather than take the disingenious course of deeming gold and silver unfit for modern economies?

      Governments should never be wanting for money to provide itself. Lowering the weight would either stimulate tax revenues or lending, while discouraging the loss of money through importing; domestically, a lower weight could have more buying power but on the world market, an ounce is an ounce is an ounce. Lowering the weight could also, therefore, encourage exporting by causing gold/silver to spill into the country to take advantage of higher domestic purchasing power.

      So it all really does come down to control, which, for them, is much better and longer achieved in using fiat than 100% gold/silver standards.

    • Zach October 4, 2010, 11:35 pm

      I for one would love to see the US become stalemated politically in the coming elections this November. I want to see less change. It’s clear to me that the increasing ability of the government to have the power to make quick and sweeping modifications to existing laws is what is throwing the balance of power way out of proportion in this country. The system in and of itself was clearly meant to be an impediment to change and therefore allow gradual movements, not sweeping overhauls. I want to see an austerity move that makes the S&L crisis look like a parent taking a lolipop from their kid. Let’s make this thing deflate like tomorrow will never come. Let’s see these interest rates explode. Let’s see people having no access to credit whatsoever for a year or two. Let’s see things truly bottom out and fast. Let’s see the foreclosure tsunami unleashed. Let’s get this damn thing on. Pissing and moaning about attempting to slowly and gradually ween off the leaches is ridiculous and costly. Let the chips fall!

  • Bay of Pigs October 4, 2010, 6:59 pm

    I guess Rich Cash decided to quit posting on gold and silver around here? Much like Prechter, his analysis was not only wrong, but terrible advice for people looking for a store of value against the pernicious monetary debasement going on worldwide by CB’s.

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 9:22 pm

      Where is Mr. Cash, anyway? He just suddenly disappeared, it seems.

  • Jim K October 4, 2010, 5:14 pm

    If China started wholesale purchase of US land, wouldn’t it kill two birds with one stone? – both devaluing their own currency relative to the dollar and acquiring real assets and disposing of dollars – why would they go the QE route when they can do all of the above? If they bought residential real estate, it would in addition, support our RE market and fix that problem…

  • donniemac October 4, 2010, 12:33 pm

    One way a nation could hide a punitive tariff is through the VAT assigned to imported goods. As many products now brought into the US are not manufactured in the US, you could have a higher VAT applied to that product. For example, I have problems finding bicycle riding gloves that are not made in China, so I have to believe that 90% plus are made in China with the rest being made in other Asian countries. So slap a 100% tariff on them, that possibly would get someone to start making them in the US as they could compete now price wise. By the time the courts determine that the added VAT has violated some fair trade treaty, the start up of an US manufacturer will be completed and the higher VAT will have done it’s “job”. And as we are a net importer at this time, it is of no retaliatory value to slap tariffs on our products, except maybe for food and that could have a positive effect at the grocery store and a negative effect on agribusiness which may not be such a bad thing. And while my example is a simple one, the premiss is applicable across the board on imported goods that have no US competition.
    Another reason to move to a consumption tax – VAT – and an elimination of income taxes.

    • Daren October 4, 2010, 1:22 pm

      Speaking as a taxpayer in the UK, you might well get your shiney new VAT in the States, but I’d be willing to bet you the last silver bullion coin I could lay my hands on that you will never, ever lose the income tax. Taxes come, taxes stay.

    • Larry October 4, 2010, 6:36 pm

      Well said Daren. The US state where I reside boosts its sales tax rate every few years. Early on, the ruse was always a “temporary” rate increase, necessary to cover a budget shortfall, then soon made permanent. After a few years…rinse, repeat.

  • watcher7 October 4, 2010, 8:39 am

    “But with the experience of the 1930s as precedent, we doubt that Smoot Hawley II will even come to a vote.”

    But if society didn’t learn the lesson of the debt and housing bubbles of the 1920s, why should it be any different with trade protection.

    It will be a matter of national survival; but it won’t be enough.

    If you don’t want trade war don’t create the situation where by it becomes inevitable – as has been done today.

  • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 6:43 am

    The only thing I don’t clearly understand is…

    “After all, why would they sit idly by as a cutthroat competitor tries to rev up exports by manipulating its currency.”

    But if they’ve not been able to sink the yen, how could they be stepping up their exports? Or is that the reason it hasn’t sunk (ie, the dollar devalues so fast in buying up Japanese stuff, that the yen gains in wake up their goods going to the U.S.)?

    I’m guessing that the latter is the case. And something would have to explain China’s interest in them. Lose with dollars, gain in yen.

    Unless China is the one dumping dollars for Japanese goods, and not nessecarily taking on more yen. Could that account for increased Japanese exports, along with the rising JPY vs USD?

    Either could be the case, but in the end I suppose it doesn’t matter. There’s too many FRN out there, and that’s that.

    • PhotoRadarScam October 4, 2010, 7:31 am

      Don’t forget Obama’s stated goal of doubling exports. over the next few years. This would be difficult if not downright impossible to do without sinking the USD. If you pay attention and connect the dots, “they” will tell you what their plans are.

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 7:36 am

      But what are we going to export, PRS? And to whom?
      Not that I’m closed to the possibility. It’s just that…

      What do we have besides resources that the world would want? And then what? We cheapen the dollar again to buy back products made elsewhere? Sounds like our central planners…

    • PhotoRadarScam October 4, 2010, 7:50 am

      I know what you’re getting at, but the reality is we still export some things, and whatever the level of exports currently is, the goal is simply to double that amount of whatever is being exported.

      So you can either work to increase foreign demand for products, innovate and create new products that others can’t easily make, or you can make your products cheaper. What is the most likely route?

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 8:06 am

      “…and whatever the level of exports currently is, the goal is simply to double that amount of whatever is being exported.”

      Good point. If it wasn’t all that high to begin with…

      I’m going to rule out the last (making them cheaper). Devalued dollars wouldn’t make them cheaper, for one, and if it’s something the world can’t manufacture, that creates/sustains at least some big $$$ sales. And we know how the financial media likes to tout encouraging numbers.

      Thanks for the clarifications.

    • PhotoRadarScam October 4, 2010, 8:29 am

      Devalued dollars DO make goods cheaper. Have you ever traveled to another country? The affordability of goods hinges greatly on the exchange rate. The other options are unrealistic… Doubling the demand for US goods over the next few years? That’s a tall order – I’d say at best you could get 10-20% if you really tried. Creating new products is also a tall order – you don’t just instantly develop new things or innovations, and even if you did, they would be manufactured overseas and copied immediately. If the other options were that easy, we’d have done them by now. Devaluing the USD is the ONLY feasible way to double exports in just a few years.

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 9:27 am

      “Devalued dollars DO make goods cheaper. Have you ever traveled to another country? The affordability of goods hinges greatly on the exchange rate.”

      You’d think, especially since, once upon a time, you could buy Canadian with USD for “cheaper”. For example, a soda that cost $1.25 here cost ~$1.75 to $2.00 USD up there. Buying tires, fuel, or mechanical repairs was even worse.

      I was always told it was cheaper, but the only noticeable difference was that the soda in Canadian dollars was (iirc, as I never paid with C$) $2.00 to $2.50. This was 1998 through 2005, just before the USD took a big slide against the CAD.

      So given that, I’ve no choice but to dismiss the idea that devalued money makes anything cheaper. That’s not to say genuine cost of production improvements can’t take place, though, so I have to retract that part.

      But I still say the other possibilities have a likelihood to speak of because goods that others can’t make is a way to promote your export power in the market. Too, you have to ask whether or not your customers/creditors would rather have a Boeing jumbo jet than hold your depreciating currency… even if they didn’t really need the jet…

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 9:38 am

      PRS,

      I also meant to say in the 2nd response that I doubted that production cost improvements were likely, for the reason that devalued currency would likely outpace them. Cancelled out, so it couldn’t play a factor in boosting imports.

      That’s what I mean in the 3rd response by retracting that statement. It doesn’t have to be that way, I suppose. Anyway, sorry for the confusion!

    • Larry October 4, 2010, 5:18 pm

      Trade, don’t forget, is a two-way street. Every imported thing then costs more than what it did before, just to so meddlers can attempt to “double” exports. Foreign governments hardly sit still and watch their own exports dry up before they devalue as well.

      That our brain(less)trust in Washington is said to be considering this race to zero is more frightening than any Iranian nuke could be.

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 9:47 pm

      Larry,

      Trade isn’t just a two-way street. It’s also unpredictably so. Devaluation forces dollars to spend today, rather than tomorrow when it will buy less. To that extent it makes goods “cheaper”, relative to just holding the currency. Too, weakening dollars can just as easily buy Saudi oil, Aussie base metals, Japanese cars, machines, yen…

      That Obama has a goal can’t change the fact that we don’t have much to trade. But with threats of tariffs?

      Again, the Chinese could shrug and just buy gold and wait this out, leaving our geniuses to explain why it not only didn’t work as advertised, but also why it failed most horribly. But here’s an interesting fact…

      Geithner apparently has a gold dilemna. I’ve recently read a curious comment he made, regarding the “problem of getting more gold into China, in order to balance global trade”. Sorry I can’t provide the link where I read/heard that, but it’s been a few months. If it’s any help, I caught wind of that at the GATA site. I did a quick search, but probably didn’t use the right key words…

      http://www.gata.org/search/node/

      Heck of an interesting subject, this is!

  • Don October 4, 2010, 5:30 am

    Why fret…
    Pull backs or dips are normal course in a bull market. If you are in the metal business either bullion or trading contracts you couldn’t design a better regime than what we have in power; let’s keep ’em in. Print and spend.
    Houdini himself couldn’t correct the current problems.

  • Martin Snell October 4, 2010, 5:29 am

    “But with the experience of the 1930s as precedent, we doubt that Smoot Hawley II will even come to a vote.”

    Note that then the US was the world beating manufacturer and running a trade surplus and it suffered most in the aftermath. This time China is the world beating manufacturer running a trade surplus. In any trade war China would be the biggest loser, just as the US was in 1929.

    The roles may be similar, but this time the roles are played by different players.

    • Benjamin October 4, 2010, 7:33 am

      Well, China could always buy more gold, as we only lead ourselves to think we were “punishing them”.

      But that’s precisely why it won’t happen, I think. The genius economists would have to explain that terd in the punchbowl of rising gold price, rapidly weakening dollars, and falling markets.

      If, on the other hand, U.S. policy barks without biting
      China can keep on spending it’s dollars for resources to keep it’s exports up, leaving the gold price relatively unscathed, even as the dollar devalues. And so long as that was the case, the geniuses could keep on beaming about the economy’s bright past, present, and future. Win-win, for all the scum of the earth.

      Perhaps this is why Rick’s lowest projection is only +134 by Jan? Seems awful modest, considering the situation the world’s in. If it were to double by Jan, that would still be an understatement of it’s value to currencies. Yeah. Unlikely, given that the U.S. can’t bite anyone.

  • PhotoRadarScam October 4, 2010, 4:37 am

    I think the only argument at the moment is the extremely overbought RSI. While it can stay overbought for a really long period of time, a pullback is likely, and probably soon. I don’t anticipate such a pullback to be huge though. A 38.2% retracement of the move up from 1155 to the 1340 target would take us to ~1270, a $70 drop. Such pull back is likely to be short-lived, IMO. Likewise, the USD is oversold. The $1270 pullback target is also the spot of a significant resistance level, so it makes a really logical pullback target.