NO Such Thing as Risk Free: S&P Downgrades US

The United States has lost its coveted top AAA credit rating.

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the nation's rating for the first time since the U.S. won the top ranking in 1917. The move came after Congress haggled over budget cuts and the nation's borrowing limit — and failed to cut enough government spending to satisfy S&P. The issue has contributed to convulsions in financial markets.

The drop in the rating by one notch to AA-plus was expected. The three main credit agencies, which also include Moody's Investor Service and Fitch, had warned during the budget fight that if Congress did not cut spending far enough, the country faced a downgrade. S&P said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation. Moody's said Friday it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation's debt, but that it might still lower it.

That’s from the Associated Press.

Governments have painted bonds to be sacramental, which the public has worshipped for all these years. Now that the tide has began to ebb, this illusion has been exposed.

As the great Frank Chodorov wrote

The use of the word investment in connection with a bond issued by the State is a treacherous euphemism. When you buy an industrial bond you lend your money to a corporation so that it can buy a machine with which to increase its output of things wanted by the market. The interest paid you is part of the increased production made possible by your loan. That is an investment. The State, however, does not put your money into production. The State spends it — that is all the State is capable of doing — and your savings disappear. The interest you get comes out of the tax fund, to which you contribute your share, and your share is increased by the cost of servicing your bond. In effect, you are paying yourself. Is that an investment?

Government bonds represent as key instruments of financial repression. They signify as redistribution mechanism of scarce and economically valuable resources from the taxpayers (productive sector of society) to the benefit of the politicians, bureaucrats and vested interest groups (unproductive sectors). Yet this arrangement has limits. Apparently we have reached it.

Now even the politically connected major credit rating agencies have obviously bowed to the forces of the marketplace. Risk-free cannot be attained by fiat or legislation (such as the Basel Accords on the banking system).

Risk-free is thus a myth.

Financial Repression Drives The Bond Markets

Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side. -Goethe

One of the most bizarre ironies which can be observed from the mainstream is the selective use of market signals for analysis.

A conventional mantra is that because actions in the bond markets have been benign, therefore experts say that inflation risks have not been apparent. Others argue that actions in the bond markets signal deflation instead of inflation.

On the one hand, these mainstream experts and their acolytes don’t trust the markets. They see markets as inherently unstable thus always opine for some form of government intervention. They believe that through mathematical equations, governments can simply adjust economic conditions similar to a thermostat of an air conditioner.

On the other hand, in justifying the selective use of market prices for government intervention, they specifically see bond markets as conveying the actual state of affairs of the credit markets. In other words, they see the bond markets as being “efficiently” priced.

The Policy of Permanent Quasi Booms

It is pretty much naive to suggest that bond markets accurately represent price signals that exhibits the actual time preferential balance of savings and loans.

First of all bond markets operate under government’s guiding dogma meant to promote the permanence of quasi boom.

From John Maynard Keynes,

The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.

Hence by actively intervening in the marketplace by forcing down interest rates implies that bond markets have already been significantly distorted which has led to serial boom bust cycles.

Further proof of the Fed’s Zero Bound interest rate policy from a Federal Reserve Paper authored by Ben Bernake, Vincent Reinhart and Brian Sack

Central banks usually implement monetary policy by setting the short-term nominal interest rate, such as the federal funds rate in the United States. However, the success over the years in reducing inflation and, consequently, the average level of nominal interest rates has increased the likelihood that the nominal policy interest rate may become constrained by the zero lower bound on interest rates. When that happens, a central bank can no longer stimulate aggregate demand by further interest-rate reductions and must rely instead on “non-standard” policy alternatives...

In this paper, we apply the tools of modern empirical finance to the recent experiences of the United States and Japan to provide evidence on the potential effectiveness of various nonstandard policies. Following Bernanke and Reinhart (2004), we group these policy alternatives into three classes: (1) using communications policies to shape public expectations about the future course of interest rates; (2) increasing the size of the central bank’s balance sheet, or “quantitative easing”; and (3) changing the composition of the central bank’s balance sheet through, for example, the targeted purchases of long-term bonds as a means of reducing the long-term interest rate. We describe how these policies might work and discuss relevant existing evidence.

This paper was done in 2004. Apparently the Bernanke led US Federal Reserve has put this study into action.

This means that aside from Zero bound interest rate policies; activist policymaking today includes the expansion of the balance sheet of the US Federal Reserve.

And this operating precept appears to have been exported to the US major trading partners.

Chart from Danske Bank

Financial Repression As A Driving Force

Second, seen from the distribution of ownership of Federal securities or US treasuries, 80% appear to be owned by governments.

The chart from Wikipedia shows of the expanding share of Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings, along with foreign governments which accounted for 28% in 2008. And this chart was prior to the activation of the Quantitative Easing programs.

Adding up the local and state government and state and local government (pensions) the share of government ownership rises above 80%.

The private sector (profit oriented segment) only holds a paltry (less than 20% share) in contrast to (politically motivated) governmental ownership.

In short, who or which entities will do the selling?

While it is true that like the stock markets, prices are set on the margins, there is another factor which attempts to protect treasury ownership from a panic: regulations on the banking system via the BASEL III accord.

According to this Bloomberg article, (bold emphasis mine)

Lenders have an added incentive to buy Treasuries after the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision proposed rules on Oct. 4 that banks increase available capital and improve their measurement and control lending risk.

Banks will have less than five years to comply with the so- called Basel III rules for minimum tier-1 capital ratios and until Jan. 1, 2019, to meet the capital buffer requirements. The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee forecast in February that banks may have as much as $1.6 trillion in demand for Treasuries in the next five years based on the evolving rules.

So new regulations will essentially force the private (banking) sectors to buy and own Federal securities, despite of the environment of higher commodity prices, which have been signaling inflation.

Thus the only marked threat of a potential selloff will likely emanate from politically motivated foreign governments.

The key question is what would motivate them to do so? A selloff would only devastate the value of their stash of US dollar reserve holdings.

And to reiterate, even if some foreign entities, like China seems reluctant to acquire US federal securities, the Fed appears to have an open checkbook—which may only be constrained by an explosion of inflation.

The chart from the Cleveland Federal Reserve shows the Fed as huge buyers of US long term treasury and Fed agency debt (yellow) and Mortgage backed Securities (brown)

Hence, anyone who argues from the standpoint of market prices without considering these variables either have been misdiagnosing real events or deluding themselves.

Yet all these constitute what Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff calls as “Financial Repression” [This Time Is Different (p. 143)] (bold emphasis mine)

Under financial repression, banks are vehicles that allow governments to squeeze more indirect tax revenue from citizens by monopolizing the entire savings and payment system. Governments force local residents to save in banks by giving them few, if any, other options. They then stuff debt into the banks via reserve requirements and other devices. This allows the government to finance a part of its debt at a very low interest rate; financial repression thus constitutes a form of taxation. Citizens put money into banks because there are few other safe places for their savings. Governments, in turn, pass regulations and restrictions to force the banks to relend the money to fund public debt. Of course, in cases in which the banks are run by the government, the central government simply directs the banks to make loans on it.

Governments frequently can and do make the financial repression tax even larger by maintaining interest rate caps while creating inflation.

These are Harvard guys. But their observations square with the Austrian school’s position of the enmeshed clandestine relationship between central banks, the banking system and the government.

According to Murray N. Rothbard,

The Central Bank has always had two major roles: (1) to help finance the government's deficit; and (2) to cartelize the private commercial banks in the country, so as to help remove the two great market limits on their expansion of credit, on their propensity to counterfeit: a possible loss of confidence leading to bank runs; and the loss of reserves should any one bank expand its own credit. For cartels on the market, even if they are to each firm's advantage, are very difficult to sustain unless government enforces the cartel. In the area of fractional-reserve banking, the Central Bank can assist cartelization by removing or alleviating these two basic free-market limits on banks' inflationary expansion credit.

This means that bond markets almost everywhere operate under the same dynamics. That’s until they became unsustainable (such as in Greece).

Bottom line:

Bond markets reflect more on the effects of government policies rather than market price based distributions.

The bond markets have been so distorted by a myriad of deeply embedded government interventions such that they cannot be used as dependable standalone indicators in analyzing the marketplace or the economy.

How To Reform The Global Debt Biased Economic System

Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff argues that the world’s problem has been “rooted in excessive concentrations of debt” and that the fix should focus on rebalancing debt into equity. I agree.

Mr. Rogoff writes,

But policy-induced distortions also play an enormous role. Many countries’ tax systems hugely favor debt over equity. The housing boom in the United States might never have reached the proportions that it did if homeowners had been unable to treat interest payments on home loans as a tax deduction. Corporations are allowed to deduct interest payments on bonds, but stock dividends are effectively taxed at the both the corporate and the individual level.

Central banks and finance ministries are also complicit, since debt gets bailed out far more aggressively than equity does.

I’d like to add that this is exactly why central banks exist: they have been designed to finance and bailout the government and or her agencies (mostly by inflation), aside from promoting “consumption” debt as path to economic growth. As for the latter, don’t you see the excessive focus by the mainstream on “employment” based on “consumer spending”?

And these composite policies, all this time, has favored or privileged the central bank supported banking industry cartel.

Since the political leadership (governments) has also benefited from these arrangements, then obviously even administrative or tax policies had been molded into a “debt” bias—which incidentally becomes a feedback loop mechanism (more government spending more inflationism by central banks).

And that’s how boom bust cycles have been playing out.

And as earlier discussed in The Myth Of Risk Free Government Bonds even bank capital regulatory requirements have been tilted towards incentivizing these institutions to hold on to “less risky” government debts.

That’s because institutional holdings on “short term” government securities, under Basel Accord, which were considered as “risk free”, were not required of capital in contrast to holdings of corporate bonds. So major institutions were incentivized to fund governments, from which politicians capitalized on, and which only bloated their nation’s respective fiscal balance sheets.

But the recent crisis has only been exposing the “nudity” of the fabled risk free “emperor”.

I would say that this systemic debt bias has been intrinsic for the paper money system build around the welfare-redistributive state.

And parallel to this been the unseen incentives that drives governments and their respective central banks to gain political capital (via extended tenure and via expanded government control over the political economy) by selling “something out of nothing” to voters via the welfare state—and to reemphasize, all of which have been propped up and funded by the debt based central banking system.

In other words, for the world economic-financial framework—estimated at some $200 trillion, and which have been configured or evolved around these embedded incentives—to be able to shift from a debt to equity bias, would require an overhaul of the monetary system first and the political systems next.

Otherwise, the markets, like it or not, will do the radical debt-to-equity makeover for us.

QE 2.0: It’s All About The US Banking System

``But the administration does not want to stop inflation. It does not want to endanger its popularity with the voters by collecting, through taxation, all it wants to spend. It prefers to mislead the people by resorting to the seemingly non-onerous method of increasing the supply of money and credit. Yet, whatever system of financing may be adopted, whether taxation, borrowing, or inflation, the full incidence of the government's expenditures must fall upon the public.” Ludwig von Mises

It’s time for a little gloating.

Last week we noted how global financial markets would likely respond to two major events that just took place in the US this week.

Globalization Versus Inflationism

We noted that while the outcome of the US elections would matter, it would be subordinate to the US Federal Reserve’s formal announcement of the second phase of the Quantitative Easing or QE 2.0.

Nevertheless we mentioned that in terms of the US Midterm Elections, still the odds greatly favoured a rebalancing of power from a lopsided stranglehold by left leaning Democrats towards the conservative-libertarian right that could result to what mainstream calls as “political gridlock”.

Such stalemate would thereby reduce the chances of government interventionism, which should have positive implications for both the markets and the US economy[1].

Figure 1: The Drubbing Of Keynesian Policies (USA Today[2])

Of course, what the surveys earlier conveyed had been merely translated into actual votes-Americans largely repudiated the highhanded Keynesian spend and tax policies adapted by the Obama administration. This also signifies as a decisive defeat for President Obama’s illusory “Change we can believe in”.

Except for the Senate which had only 37 seats, out of the 100, contested, Republicans swept the House (239-188) and the Governorship position (29-18). Yet, even in the Senate, the chasm in the balance of power held by the Democrats had been significantly narrowed (from 57-41 to 51-46).

To rub salt into the wound, even President Obama’s former seat at Illinois was won by a GOP candidate[3], Mark Kirk.

The burgeoning revolt against interventionist Keynesian policies has likewise been an ongoing development in Europe[4].

And as we have repeatedly been pointing out, two major forces have been in a collision course: technology buttressed globalization (represented by dispersion of knowledge and the deepening specialization expressed through free trade) and inflationism (concentration of political power).

The rising tide against Keynesianism, which translates to a backlash from these two grinding forces, can be equally construed as a manifestation of an evolving institutional crisis or strains from traditional socio-political structures adjusting to a new reality.

As Alvin and Heidi Toffler presciently wrote[5],

``Bureaucracy, clogged courts, legislative myopia, regulatory gridlock and pathological incrementalism cannot but take their toll. Something, it would appear will have to give...

``All across the board –at the level of families firms industries national economies and the global system itself—we are now making the most sweeping transformation ever in the links between wealth creation and the deep fundamental of time itself. (italics mine)

For now, the forces of globalization appear to be the more influential trend.

Validated Anew: QE 2.0 Is About Asset Price Support

However, as we also noted, Keynesianism hasn’t entirely been vanquished[6]. They remain deeply embedded in most of the political institutions represented as unelected officials in the bureaucratic world. Importantly, they are personified as stewards of our monetary system.

Here is what I wrote last week[7],

``The QE 2.0, in my analysis, is NOT about ‘bolstering employment or exports’, via a weak dollar or the currency valve, from which mainstream insights have been built upon, but about inflating the balance sheets of the US banking system whose survival greatly depends on levitated asset prices.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, in a recent Op-Ed column[8] Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke justifies the Fed’s QE 2.0,

``This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion. (bold highlights mine)

Once again I have been validated.

The path dependency of Ben Bernanke’s policies has NOT been different[9] from his perspective as a professor at Princeton University in 2000 when he wrote along the same theme.

``There’s no denying that a collapse in stock prices today would pose serious macroeconomic challenges for the United States. Consumer spending would slow, and the U.S. economy would become less of a magnet for foreign investors. Economic growth, which in any case has recently been at unsustainable levels, would decline somewhat. History proves, however, that a smart central bank can protect the economy and the financial sector from the nastier side effects of a stock market collapse. (bold emphasis mine)

Figure 2: stockcharts.com: Global Equity Markets Explode!

The net effect of QE 2.0 has been almost surreal.

Global equity markets (DJW), as expected, skyrocketed to the upside from the higher than expected $600 billion or $75 billion a month (for 8 months) of US treasury long term security purchases that the Federal Reserve will be conducting with new digital dollars. Markets reportedly estimated the QE program at $500 billion[10].

And the Federal Reserve made sure in their announcement that $600 billion will not be a limiting condition. The FOMC said that they “will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability”[11].

It’s simply amazing how the Fed’s QE 2.0 transmission mechanism has been worldwide. Whether in Asia (P1DOW-Dow Jones Asia), Europe (E1DOW-Dow Jones Europe) or Emerging markets (EEM-iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index), the story has all been the same—markets breaking out to the upside.

I’d like to add that such bubble blowing policies has NOT been limited to the Federal Reserve.

Immediately after the Fed’s announcement, the Bank of Japan voted unanimously to support the domestic stock market by engaging on their own version of QE that would include “exchange-trade funds linked to the Topix index and Nikkei Stock Average, and Japanese real-estate investment trusts rated at least AA, the bank said. It said it would begin buying Japanese government bonds under its new program next week.[12]” (bold emphasis mine)

Add to these the inflation of global central banks international reserve position to the tune of $ 1.5 trillion over the past 12 months[13].

Hence the consequences of massive inflationism are likely to be fully felt yet in the markets.

The False Premise: Aggregate Demand Story

The substantiation of our analysis isn’t limited to Bernanke’s statements alone. Markets have likewise bidded up the major beneficiaries of the QE 2.0 program—the banks and the financial industry (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Financial Industry: From Laggards to Leaders (charts from US global Investors and stockcharts.com)

The mainstream wisdom goes this way: Money printing does not create inflation. With low inflation, printing money is, therefore, needed to generate demand that would spur inflation. This form of circular reasoning[14], which characterizes Keynesian economics, is what is sold to public as rationalization for the current policy. The mainstream sees it as an aggregate demand problem that can only be addressed by money printing.

The mainstream fails to see that there is NO such thing as a free lunch or that prosperity cannot be conjured or summoned by the magic wand of the printing presses.

All these so-called technocratic experts refuse to learn from history or deliberately distort its lessons, where debasing money has always been meant to accommodate for the political goals or interests of the ruling class.

Yet monetary inflation eventually crumbles to nature’s laws of scarcity for the simple reason that it is unsustainable. Printing of money does NOT equate anywhere to the same degree as producing goods and services. Printing of money can be limitless, while production of goods and services are limited to the available scarce resources.

Unknown to many, printing of money is subject to the law of diminishing returns (getting less for every extra output or a law affirming that to continue after a certain level of performance has been reached will result in a decline in effectiveness[15]) and law of diminishing marginal utility (general decrease in the utility of a product, as more units of it are consumed[16]).

And it is why repeated experiments with paper money throughout the ages of human affairs have repeatedly failed[17]. And I don’t see why the grand US dollar standard experiment today as likely to succeed either. The QE programs fundamentally reflect on the same symptoms of any degenerating or festering de facto money regime. We should expect more QE programs to happen.

Yet the aggregate demand story is basically premised on debt. To promote aggregate demand is to promote debt. Debts either incurred by the private sector or by governments in lieu of the private sector. While productive debt and consumption debt are hardly distinguished, consumption debt is promoted. Savings are disparaged as economically harmful. And the promotion of debt is the essential or critical element to fostering bubbles.

Figure 4: World Bank: Banking Crisis Since the 1970s

Hasn’t it been a wonder that since the closing of the Bretton Woods gold-dollar window in 1971, bubbles became a permanent fixture worldwide?

Yet, the public hardly can see through who the major beneficiaries from the debt based aggregate demand story. Obviously, it is the banking and the financial industry as they represent as the major funding intermediaries or financiers to both the private sector and importantly to the government.

And the banking system had been structurally incented to hold (or buy or finance) government debts into their balance sheets as they have been classified as less risky assets and thus requires less capital in accordance to the Basel Accord[18].

During the last crisis the unholy alliance of the central banking-banking industry cartel had been exposed as seen by the trillions worth of bailouts by the US Federal Reserve[19].

Yet the politicized nature of central banking (everywhere) obviously leads to cartel structured relationships, as survivability depends not on profitability based on market forces, but from the privileged conditions bestowed upon by the political strata.

And the QE 2.0, which I argued as having been unmoored from the prospects of the US or global economy, but rather aimed at safeguarding the balance sheets of the banking system has successfully boosted the prices of financial equity benchmarks, such as S&P Bank Index (BIX), the Dow Jones Mortgage Finance Index (DJUSMF), the S&P Insurance (IUX) and the Dow Jones US General Financial Index (DJUSGF), all along the lines of Bernanke’s design.

The industry that had miserably lagged[20] the recent stock market recovery in the US has in one week suddenly outclassed the rest.

Of course people who argue about the success or failure of policies frequently look at the effects depending on the time frame that support their bias.

For instance, policies that induce bubbles will benefit some participants, during its heydays. Hence, policy supporters will claim of its ‘success’ seen on a temporary basis as the bubble inflates. Yet overtime, an implosion of such bubbles would result to a net loss to the economy and to the markets. The overall picture is ignored.

And the same aspects would also apply to those arguing that the Fed’s rescue of the banking system has been worthwhile. They’re not. The benefits of a temporary reprieve from the recent crisis envisages greater risks of a monumental systemic blowup. If Fed policies had been successful, then why the need for QE 2.0?

So for biased people, the measure of success is seen from current activities than from the intertemporal tradeoffs between the short term and long term consequences of policies.

In other words, yes, the QE 2.0, which constitutes the continuing bailout of the US banking industry, seems to successfully inflate bubbles, mostly overseas. But at the end of the day, these bubbles will result to net capital consumption, if not the destruction of the concurrent monetary regime.

The next time a major bubble implodes there won’t likely be free lunch rescues as these will be limited by today’s massive debt overhang.

The Effects of QE 2.0: Promotes Poverty And A Shift To A New Monetary Order

Of course while the equity price performance of the US financial industry stole the limelight the next best performers have been the Energy and the Materials Index.

In other words, as I have long been predicting, the accelerating traction of the inflation transmission channels are presently being manifested in surging prices of commodities and commodity related equity assets aside from global equity markets.

While this should benefit equity owners and producers of commodity related enterprises, aside from the financial sector, those who claim that inflationism is justifiable and a moral policy response to the current conditions are just plain wrong. Such redistributive policies to the benefit of the banking sector come at the expense of the underprivileged.

What is hardly apparent or seen is that the current government structured inflation indices have been vastly underreporting inflation.

Yet surging agricultural and food prices would not only harm a significant percentage of financially underprivileged by reducing their money’s purchasing power but also promote poverty in the US and elsewhere.

Figure 5: Food Expenditures By Income Level

Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge quotes a JP Morgan study[21], (bold emphasis mine)

When the Fed considers the possible consequences of a falling dollar resulting from QE2, it should perhaps focus on food and energy prices as much as on traditionally computed core inflation. First, the food/energy exposures of the lower 2 income quintiles are quite high (see chart). Second, the core CPI has a massive weight to “owner’s equivalent rent”, which suggests that the imputed cost of home occupancy has gone down. Unfortunately, this is not true for families living in homes that are underwater, and cannot move to take advantage of it (unless they choose to default and bear the consequences of doing so). Due to the housing mess, there has perhaps never been a time when traditionally computed core inflation as a way of measuring changes in the cost of things means less than it does right now.

Figure 6: ADB[22] Asia’s Share of Food Expenditure to Total Expenditure

And as said above the effects are likely to hurt the underprivileged of the emerging markets more than the US.

So inflationism or QE 2.0 poses as a major risk to global poverty alleviation and prosperity, a blame that should be laid squarely on these policymakers and their supporters.

Of course as the ramifications of inflationary policies worsen, the subsequent scenario would be for political trends to shift towards holding the private sector responsible for elevated prices and for ‘greed’ in order to institute more government control and inflationism.

As the great Ludwig von Mises once wrote[23],

``They put the responsibility for the rising cost of living on business. This is a classical case of the thief crying "catch the thief." The government, which produced the inflation by multiplying the supply of money, incriminates the manufacturers and merchants and glories in the role of being a champion of low prices. While the [the government] is busy annoying sellers as well as consumers by a flood of decrees and regulations, the only effect of which is scarcity, the Treasury [and the Fed] go on with inflation”

Here free trade will likely give way to protectionism; that is if public remains ignorant of true causes of inflation and if the world would stubbornly stick by the US dollar as preferred global medium of exchange.

Of course Asian nations were hardly receptive to the unilateral actions by the Federal Reserve. The conventional recourse in dealing with QE 2.0 has been via currency appreciation, tightening of domestic liquidity by raising bank reserves or increase policy rates or lastly ‘temporary’ capital controls. So far some countries as South Korea have threatened to impose some variation of capital controls.

Yet we should expect the world to shift out of the US dollar regime once inflationism becomes rampant enough to pose as a meaningful hurdle to national economic development and global trade. The Bloomberg quotes China’s Central Bank adviser Xia Bin[24],

``China should counter the U.S. through regional currency alliances, speeding international use of the yuan and seeking stability in exchange rates through the Group of 20, which holds a summit next week”

A currency from a political economy that engages in significantly less inflationism, has deep and developed sophisticated markets, has a convertible currency and hefty geopolitical exposure is likely to challenge the US dollar hegemony, whether this would be the yuan (which for the moment is unlikely) or the Euro, only time will tell.

Of course, we can’t discount gold’s role in possibly being integrated anew in the reform of the monetary architectural system.

Figure 7: Virtual Metals[25]: Central Bank Gold Holdings and Sales

Global Central banks appears to be rediscovering gold as possibly reclaiming its role as money in a new monetary order. A new monetary order is not question about an if, but a when.

Once as net sellers, central banks seem to be transitioning into potential net buyers.

So again, our peripheral insight seems being validated with the ongoing process of shifting expectations by authorities on the functions of gold.

As I pointed out last year[26], gold is presently seen by an ECB official as a form of economic security, risk diversification, a confidence factor and an insurance against tail risks. Once these factors become well entrenched, a store of value role would likely be the next step. And more QE’s would only serve to push gold towards such a path.

Those who obstinately relish the bias that gold is nothing but a barbaric relic will likewise suffer from taking on the wrong positions. But they eventually will succumb to the shifting expectations as with many monetary authorities today. The reflexive process of having prices influence fundamentals has clearly been taking shape.

With gold prices at $1,390 mainstream economists like celebrity Nouriel Roubini[27], who last year debated savvy investor Jim Rogers and declared “Maybe it will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense”, must be squirming on his seat for the likelihood to be proven wrong once again.

---

[1] See US Midterm Elections: Rebalancing Political Power And Possible Implications To The Financial Markets, October 31, 2010

[2] USA Today, 2010 Elections: Live Results

[3] Politico.com Roland Burris will serve in November, November 5, 2010

[4] See An Overextended Phisix, Keynesians On Retreat And Interest Rate Sensitive Bubbles, October 25, 2010

[5] Toffler, Alvin and Toffler, Heidi Revolutionary Wealth Random House p.40

[6] See Trick Or Treat: The Federal Reserve’s Expected QE Announcement, October 31, 2010

[7] Ibid

[8] Bernanke, Ben What the Fed did and why: supporting the recovery and sustaining price stability, Washington Post, November 4, 2010

[9] Bernanke, Ben A Crash Course for Central Bankers, Foreign Policy.com or wikiquote Ben Bernanke

[10] Macau Daily Times Asian markets rise, dollar falls, November 5, 2011

[11] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2010 Press Release

[12] Marketwatch.com Bank of Japan holds steady, details asset plans, November 4, 2010

[13] Noland, Doug QE2 Credit Bubble Bulletin, Prudent Bear.com

[14] See Thought Of The Day: The Keynesian Circular Thought Process, June 22, 2010

[15] Wordnetweb.princeton.edu law of diminishing returns

[16] Wiktionary.org law of diminishing marginal utility

[17] See Surging Gold Prices Reveals Strain In The US Dollar Standard-Paper Money System, November 1, 2010

[18] See The Myth Of Risk Free Government Bonds, June 9, 2010

[19] See $23.7 Trillion Worth Of Bailouts?, July 29 2010

[20] See The Possible Implications Of The Next Phase Of US Monetary Easing, October 17, 2010

[21] Durden Tyler, How Ben Bernanke Sentenced The Poorest 20% Of The Population To A Cold, Hungry Winter, Zerohedge.com November 5, 2010

[22] Asian Development Bank: Food Prices and Inflation in Developing Asia: Is Poverty Reduction Coming to an End? April 2008

[23] Mises, Ludwig von The Truth About Inflation

[24] Bloomberg.com Asians Gird for Bubble Threat, Criticize Fed Move November 4, 2010

[25] Virtualmetals.co.uk The Yellow Book September 2010

[26] See Is Gold In A Bubble? November 22, 2009

[27] See Jim Rogers Versus Nouriel Roubini On Gold, Commodities And Emerging Market Bubble, November 5, 2009

What Gold’s Latest Record Prices Mean

``The struggle against gold which is one of the main concerns of all contemporary governments must not be looked upon as an isolated phenomenon. It is but one item in the gigantic process of destruction which is the mark of our time. People fight the gold standard because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty.” Ludwig von Mises

A major trait of bullmarket is, whatever assets we sell today will climb higher tomorrow. This implies that the most regrettable course of action in a bullmarket is to sell.

And one great example would be the gold market. Gold just set a new record in terms of nominal high (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Netdania.com[1]: Gold’s Stairway To Heaven

The monthly chart reveals that gold prices have been in a bullmarket since 2000. While true enough, there have long periods of consolidation, the general trend over the last decade has been up.

And importantly, contrary to those who allege that gold functions as safehaven during recessions or during the “deflation-symptom” crisis similar to the Bear Stearns-Lehman episode of 2008, evidence has shown otherwise—gold fell during the previous two recessions of 2001 and 2008 (see black channel lines)!

Alternatively, the most recent record run only implies that the fresh milestone high, established last week, DOES NOT presage of any forthcoming market crashes or “double dip” recessions. And if gold serves as a lead indicator as previously discussed[2], then the likelihood is to see reanimated activities in global risk markets.

At the start of the year, we were told that gold wouldn’t generate investor appetite as the menace of “deflation” continues to lurk around the corner. We even read predictions stating that gold would fall back to the $800 levels[3] way until last month[4].

However, as we have always been saying--in a world of central banking, deflation is no more than a bogeyman to rationalize more inflationism, which central bankers are likely to accommodate. After all, inflation is ALL about politics. And central bankers, in spite of their supposed “independent” role, have been the main conduits in financing government expenditures. Thus all talks of “independence” are mostly demagoguery. Fact is, global banking regulations, as the Basel Accords, have all been skewed to accommodate government expenditures[5].

Of course, one major bullish factor about gold is that mainstream STILL doesn’t get it; gold isn’t just an inflation hedge, nor is it about alternative assets[6]. It’s also been starkly misguided to impute ‘conventional’ financial valuation metrics to gold when this doesn’t apply. It’s even myopic to calculate or value gold prices premised on commodity usage. And it is also faulty to appraise gold based on global mining output. Since gold isn’t being consumed, incremental additions to the above ground supplies by existing mines hardly determine the pricing model (see previous discussion[7]).

In a decadent world of fiat money, where money printing to fulfil specific political agenda have been the most convenient route resorted to by political leaders everywhere-for the simple reason that the ignorant masses hardly understands how such surreptitious redistributive activities influences their lives- gold seems to be re-establishing its role as ‘money’.

Therefore, gold’s ascendant trend in ALL currencies have simply been manifestations that demand for gold has been transforming from mere “commodity” (jewelry and industrial usage) to “money”.

Gold is being held as reserve asset not just by the central bank, but importantly by the general public. Gold’s increased function as “reservation demand” is what usually the mainstream sees as “speculation” or “speculative hoarding” or “investment demand”.

Otherwise said, money’s “store of value” is increasingly being factored into gold prices (unit of account). Hence, relative to gold pricing, this implies that reservation dynamics or the reservation model (and not consumption model) determines gold valuations or that the exchange ratio or monetary valuations relative to fiat currency applies-- where valuations are determined by the expected changes in relationship between the relative quantity of, and the demand for, gold as money vis-a-vis paper currencies.

And possibly one day, such transformation would include the deepening of “exchange demand” or gold as ‘medium of exchange’ (see previous discussion[8]). Proof of this has been the emergence of Gold ATMs in Germany[9] and in Abu Dhabi[10].

All these, of course, are ultimately dependent on the stimulus-response and action-reaction of global political leaders on the swiftly evolving political, economic and financial sphere.

And thus, periods of weaknesses, whether from recessions or from consolidations (in technical or chart lingo the “energy fields”), has served as buying windows rather than selling opportunities.

Yet for those whom have remained sceptical and or earnestly drudge to market “timing” gold’s prices, they usually end up chasing gold prices higher-- buy high and sell low.

And this is especially brutal to those in constant denial of gold’s ascendancy; they have entirely missed out the rally for ideological reasons, and vent their frustrations by continually disparaging such developments. The odd thing is that this has already been a 10-year market process.

Yet since gold rise has been threefold, all errant attempts to “time” the market has resulted to lost or missed profit opportunities.

As the legendary trader Jesse Livermore expressed by Edwin Lefevre in the classic must read for any serious investors, “Reminiscences of a Stock Operator”,

``Disregarding the big swing and trying to jump in and out was fatal to me. Nobody can catch all the fluctuations. In a bull market your game is to buy and hold until you believe that the bull market is near its end. To do this you must study general conditions and not tips or special factors affecting individual stocks.[11]”

In short, the best returns emanate from long term investments.

---

[1] Netdania.com, Forex charts

[2] See Why The Current Market Volatility Does Not Imply A Repeat Of 2008

[3] Yahoo. Finance, Gold Is "Fairly Expensive," Could Fall to $800 If Fed Moves, Midas Fund Manager Says, January 22, 2010

[4] CNN.Money, The coming gold bust

[5] See The Myth Of Risk Free Government Bonds

[6] Reuters.com, US gold sets record, ends strong as alternate asset

[7] See Gold As Our Seasonal Barometer

[8] See Financialization of Commodities: Boon Or Bane?

[9] See Creative Destruction: Electronic Payments Over Cash And Checks

[10] Financial Times Blog, Abu Dhabi’s gold ATM machine a sign of more opulence to come, May 13 2010

[11] Lefevre, Edwin, Reminiscences of a Stock Operator p.76 John Wiley and Sons