Boom2Bust.com

Weekend Videos

Just got back to blogging late Friday evening. Had to entertain my relatives from Canada who are in. Like the Irish a couple of weeks ago, they shopped liked it was Christmas in July to take advantage of the weaker dollar. I know one thing for sure. Foreigners sure love our “strong dollar” policy…

“Oil Crisis”
Becky Quick
CNBC, July 18, 2008

From the CNBC website:

The House may vote on releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and CNBC’s Becky Quick.

You can view the 3 minute 18 second video here.

Note to Congress- there is no quick-fix for the energy crisis. I’m starting to consider donating funds to Jim Puplava’s proposed program, “No Congressman Left Behind.”

Apparently, it’s a non-issue now anyway, seeing that after oil prices suffered their biggest weekly drop ever, Yahoo! Finance asks tonight, “So is it time to declare the energy bubble popped?” By the way, the Associated Press is reporting that terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports. Good thing Congress wants to deplete oil stockpiles meant for a national emergency. Like a major terrorist attack, for example. If you think 9/11 was a one-off event, I have a bridge that spans the East River out in NYC that I can sell you for a really good price…

“Is government clueless about economy”
Jim Jubak
MSN Money, July 18, 2008

From the MSN Money website:

Washington is talking us into a deeper crisis. Neither the President nor Congress gets it: When you owe as much as the US does, keeping your overseas creditors happy is the most important thing, says Jim Jubak.

You can view the 4 minute 7 second video here.

Jubak said in the segment:

The Saudi government has gone into serious discussions about taking its currency off the dollar peg.

“Christmas In July”
The Dandy Warhols, “Little Drummer Boy” (1995)
YouTube Video Link

Congress Approves National Colosseum

Not really. But Capitol Hill politicians might as well allocate funds to build one, complete with chariot races and gladiators to keep us happy, considering the way they’re pandering to the masses these days. When Congress only has a 20% approval rating (Gallup), what else would you expect? Something like what happened today. Hoping to sooth the economic pain (and gain the electoral support) of Joe Six-Pack and Suzy Soccer Mom, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, in a direct challenge to President Bush, voted to temporarily halt the shipment of thousands of barrels of oil a day into the government’s emergency reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a system of underground salt domes on the Gulf Coast, was created by the U.S. government in the seventies as a precaution against major interruptions of oil supplies. With 701 million barrels in storage, it is currently 97% full, yet the equivalent of only two months of oil imports.

The Senate voted 97 to 1 in favor of suspending the shipments, which average about 70,000 barrels a day, until the end of the 2008. Only Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado voted against the measure. Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton also voted to halt the shipments as well. John McCain was not present for the vote. Mirroring the same bipartisan support as in the Senate, the House voted 385 to 25 in favor of halting the program.

For some time now, Congress has wanted to tinker with the SPR, jawboning on and on about how curbing deliveries to and/or drawing from the emergency reserve (by the way, what part of “emergency” don’t you get?) can ease tight oil supplies, curb market speculation, and possibly lower crude oil prices. Case in point. MSNBC’s John Schoen wrote back on May 19, 2004 (that’s right, 4 years ago):

With oil prices stuck above $40 a barrel, attention has turned to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a vast stockpile of oil stored underground that the U.S. continues to add to. While Democrats call for releasing some of those reserves to help ease oil prices, President Bush Wednesday repeated his long-standing position that the stockpile should only be used in the event of a critical cutoff of fuel needed to maintain the country’s national defense…

“Since the price of oil is so closely tied to inventory levels, filling the SPR under these market conditions both depletes private sector inventories and pushes up prices for America’s consumers,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., in a floor speech in April defending an amendment to defer SPR purchases.

More recently, New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer has introduced an amendment to draw 1 million barrels a day from the reserve for the next 30 days.

“Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?”

And Congress’ assertions that curbing shipments to and/or drawing from the SPR could help with our supply problems, dampen speculation, and lower oil prices? Wrong, wrong, and wrong, according to the experts (or, at least, people who know what they’re talking about). Regarding the supply problem, the 70,000 barrels that are being sent to the reserve on a daily basis represents only 0.3% of the 20 million barrels consumed by Americans each and every day. 0.3%? Can anyone tell me how this could possibly help alleviate tight supplies? Regarding the perception that high oil prices are caused by speculators, legendary energy investor T. Boone Pickens told attendees at the Oklahoma State University’s Energy Conference on April 23:

Only 5 percent of oil is in the commodity pool. If you did run it up, it would be briefly. Speculators cannot move it that much.

He would know. Finally, a number of politicians believe (or want us to believe) that halting shipments and even drawing from the SPR will somehow lower oil prices. CNN Money’s Steve Hargreaves wrote today:

A statement from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it could bring down gas prices by as much as 24 cents a gallon.

Or so she claims. The CNN Money staff writer also wrote:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts oil prices would fall by only about $2 a barrel - or shave 4 to 5 cents a gallon off the price of gas - if the president suspended deliveries to the SPR.

“It’s a very small amount” of oil going into the reserve, said EIA oil market analyst Doug MacIntyre. “And it’s very transparent to the market.”

Should I believe House Speaker Pelosi or the EIA? Tough call, right?

Here’s something to think about. A possible explanation for the high price of crude oil is that global demand is running at 87 million barrels per day, while the global oil supply is at 85 million barrels per day. Furthermore, while older oil fields are starting to go dry, no suitable replacements are being found. Finally, even though the U.S. economy is slowing, for every 1 barrel of reduced American demand there are 14 barrels of increased demand from developing countries like China, India, and Brazil.

Oh, but this just in…

“Middle East Oil Cut Off By Coordinated Attacks Throughout Region” and “Gulf Oil Infrastructure Destroyed By Category 5 Hurricane”

Well done. Thanks for saving me that nickel.

Sources:

“Senate votes to halt oil reserve shipments”
H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press, May 13, 2008

“House votes to stop adding to oil stockpile”
Tom Doggett
Reuters (UK), May 13, 2008

“Debate flares over strategic oil stockpiles”
John W. Schoen
MSNBC, May 19, 2004

“Oil stockpile a drop in the bucket”
Steve Hargreaves
CNN Money, May 13, 2008

“Pickens: Oil to go to $150 a barrel”
Jerry Shottenkirk
Journal Record, April 24, 2008

Who’s To Blame For The High Price Of Oil?

I read the following the other day in a grocery store publication on Chicago’s northwest side. Regarding the high cost of oil and gasoline, the bureau chief of the paper wrote:

Whew! What is the answer? I think we should contact our elected officials, both state and national, and let them know we, the taxpayers, need some relief. Yes, I know about Bush’s economic stimulus package that is on the way- but I don’t want to put it all in my gas tank.

There’s no use arguing with most Americans over who’s to blame for high oil and gasoline prices. In their minds, “Big Oil” is the culprit, with a dash of President Bush, his oil buddies, and every level of government sprinkled in for good measure. But before you forward on that e-mail about a “gas station holiday” to five of your friends, consider this: Could it be possible that the high price of crude oil is mainly due to the basic principle of supply-and-demand? Just a thought. Bloomberg’s Mark Shenk wrote today:

China, India, Russia and the Middle East for the first time will consume more crude oil than the U.S., burning 20.67 million barrels a day this year, an increase of 4.4 percent, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris.

And here in the good old US of A?

U.S. demand will contract 2 percent to 20.38 million barrels daily, the IEA says.

Shenk noted that economic growth in China and India of more than 8%, coupled with increasing car ownership among the countries’ combined populations of 2.45 billion people, will more than compensate for declining demand in the United States. According to the IEA, global oil use will increase 2% this year largely because of emerging market growth.

Regarding the topic of car ownership, China’s passenger car sales jumped 22% to 6.3 million units sold last year. Reuters’ Joe Mcdonald reported on the Chinese auto sector today, and wrote:

Auto sales in China are booming, with analysts and automakers forecasting growth at 15-20 percent this year. But demand for the biggest vehicles is even stronger, with sales of luxury cars and SUVs expected to surge by 40-45 percent…

“Chinese buyers typically like bigger cars and they have the resources to go for them,” said Tim Dunne, J.D. Power’s director of Asia-Pacific market intelligence.

Source: China Daily

Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale SA in London, told Bloomberg:

Does the U.S. matter anymore? Has the U.S. mattered for the last few years? It is debatable. As far as the oil market is concerned, demand growth is going to be continued to be driven by China and the Middle East.

Still feel like contacting your elected officials?

Sources:

“Emerging Market Oil Use Exceeds U.S. as Prices Rise (Update2)”
Mark Shenk
Bloomberg, April 21, 2008

“Gas guzzlers a hit in China, where car sales are booming”
Joe Mcdonald
Reuters, April 21, 2008

New Report Suggests No Relief From High Oil Prices

According to global news agency Agence France-Presse, leading energy consultants are forecasting oil prices will remain high in 2008 due to tight supplies and despite fears of a weakening U.S. economy. Consultants at the London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies also used their December report to attack the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), saying that the oil cartel deliberately restricted oil production in 2007 to prevent prices from declining.

The CGES said earlier today that:

Although oil production at last appears to be rising, oil prices are expected to remain high over the winter and into 2008, despite fears about the true state of the US economy.

Regarding OPEC, the energy analysts pointed out:

This year OPEC deliberately kept the world short of oil in order to avoid a repeat of last year’s autumn price fall, a policy that has been extremely effective from the organisation’s point of view…

As a result of OPEC’s supply restraint, global oil inventories are expected to fall by 425,000 bpd (barrels per day) this year and it is difficult to see how this, combined with strongly rising prices, can be described as a market that is well supplied, as OPEC has repeatedly claimed.

In a post from December 12 I noted that Goldman Sachs, the most active investment bank in the energy markets, is also forecasting higher crude oil prices in 2008, buoyed by restricted production levels. Goldman analysts are predicting an average of $95 a barrel next year.

OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world’s crude, has insisted it was not responsible for the price of crude soaring to almost 100 dollars a barrel in 2007. Rather, the cartel said that speculators were to blame for the spike in prices.

Vanguard Founder Says Recession Odds At 75 Percent

Earlier today, CNN Money posted the answers to questions Fortune readers asked of John Bogle, the 78-year-old founder of mutual fund giant Vanguard. With $1.3 trillion in assets, Vanguard is now the second-largest mutual fund company. Bogle talked about the odds of a U.S. recession, the U.S. housing market, the subprime crisis, and challenges to the U.S. economy, among other issues.

What are the odds of a recession right now?

I would put the odds of a recession at 75 percent. This economy is very much consumer-based, and I believe that 70 percent of the GDP is consumer spending. That’s a very high number. Two things are happening there: Consumers have fewer resources because from 2001 to 2005 they took $5 trillion out of real estate. That will not recur. This is a big drop. We also see weakness in auto sales and retail spending - we even see it at companies like Starbucks. There is another, equally important factor in consumer spending, and that is confidence. Consumers are not going to spend if they are worried about the future.

Will the real estate market improve anytime soon?

It doesn’t look so good. I really don’t see it improving soon. At some point homes will have to be built. But right now there is not much incentive to build new places when there are so many old places on the market. When those lines cross I don’t know. It’s complicated by the fact that many people have gotten into ARMs [adjustable-rate mortgages] who didn’t know what they were doing. I don’t know what is going to happen to those people when lenders foreclose. When banks were community banks, they were more careful. But when banks sell loans in a bundle, they are clearly not going to be concerned about mortgage quality. So we have to have a better system in the future to make sure we have a much better element of credit quality in mortgages.

How does the U.S. subprime mess compare with other crises you have seen in your career?

I’d say the most similar example was the S&L crisis of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The issues were somewhat the same: Institutions borrowed short and lent long.

The immediate concern for most investors is the subprime market, but over the long term what do you see as the biggest challenges facing the U.S. economy?

Externally, we are faced with $1.5 trillion already poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. So you have enormous expenditures in a corner of the world that is important to us, but it is very unwise to think we can bring democracy to a place that doesn’t share our values. There are also the challenges from low cost production in China and India. At home, we have a tremendous future financial problem with the federal deficit. We’ll have to take action on Social Security someday. Government spending has gotten to the point where we will have to either cut spending or raise taxes. Another problem is this deadlocked Congress. And I see the quality and caliber of our presidential nominees, and I am not impressed.

It raises the question of whether this country is even able to run itself anymore.

Goldman Sachs: Oil Prices Headed Higher In 2008

According to Reuters, the most active investment bank in the energy markets, Goldman Sachs, released a new forecast today that said U.S. oil prices will head higher in the coming year. The bank also expects the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC) to restrict crude oil production levels, even though global demand may rise. Goldman is forecasting U.S. crude oil to cost an average of $95 a barrel in 2008, up $10 from a previous projection. Analysts at the bank suggested that the price could even reach $105 by this time next year. The new price forecast for 2008 is 7% higher than the most bullish projection among 37 analysts recently polled by Reuters. According to the Financial Times (UK) today, Jeffrey Currie, head of commodities research at the investment bank, said continuing industry cost inflation and uncertainty should provide support to prices in 2008 in spite of an expected economic downturn.

Goldman Sachs also predicted OPEC will not change its stance in restricting oil supplies. The Financial Times said Currie believes that OPEC’s decision to leave production levels unchanged, rather than to raise them as anticipated, suggests the cartel shares the market’s concerns and has moved to pre-empt the anticipated slowdown in oil demand growth. According to the commodities analyst:

Importantly, the OPEC decision is now limiting actual supplies coming to market, while the anticipated weakness in economic and oil demand growth remains as forecast, with current oil market fundamentals showing no signs of significant weakness yet.

Goldman Sachs expects global oil demand to rise by 1.7 million barrels per day (bpd) next year, which is 200,000 bpd less than previously forecast, but still a higher estimate than others, including OPEC.

Nauman Barakat, senior vice president of global energy futures at Macquarie Futures USA Inc. in New York, told Bloomberg today that, “Goldman has credibility because they were the first to predict that crude would spike to $100. A sharp increase in their forecast catches everyone’s attention.” Arjun Murti, a New York-based Goldman Sachs analyst who covers oil producers and refiners, roiled markets in March 2005 when he reported that oil prices could touch $105 a barrel during a “super spike” because demand was stronger than anticipated.

Russia’s Gazprom May Say No To Dollars

When I see what’s happened to the U.S. dollar, I think of Rodney Dangerfield and him always joking “I don’t get no respect.” And according to Bloomberg this afternoon, the greenback took another one on the chin as Gazprom, the world’s largest natural gas exporter, announced it may start selling its crude and gas production in rubles rather than dollars and euros.

Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chief executive officer, told reporters in New York today that, “We are seriously thinking about selling our resources in rubles.” The gas giant’s chief financial officer, Andrei Kruglov, told the same members of the press that the switch would happen “sooner, rather than later.”

According to New York Times reference material on Gazprom:

What former General Motors president Charles E. Wilson said of his company – “what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa” - could well apply to Russia’s Gazprom, the nation’s largest company. The line between state-owned Gazprom and the Russian state is often blurry. The monopoly’s primary activity is selling natural gas in Europe at market rates to subsidize energy prices domestically. Several board members wear two hats and also work in government; for example, Dmitri A. Medvedev, a first deputy prime minister, is chairman of Gazprom. Still, the company controls more hydrocarbon reserves than the country of Iraq. So when it opened to foreign investors earlier this year, the capitalization spiked over $200 billion. Gazprom produced 545 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2004.

Bloomberg noted that the dollar has fallen 11% against the euro so far this year, which has reduced the value of exports by oil-rich nations and contributed to a 49% increase in crude oil prices. This announcement comes on the heels of the secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council saying last week that six Gulf Arab states will discuss a proposal next month to revalue their currencies against the U.S. dollar.

Paulson Predecessor Says U.S. Recession Likely

In Sunday’s Financial Times (UK), former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that the odds now favor a U.S. recession that will slow growth significantly on a global basis. Summers, who served with the Clinton administration and now teaches at Harvard University in addition to serving as a managing director at hedge fund D.E. Shaw Group, concluded that the U.S. economy will stall out, based on the following:

1. The U.S. housing slump marches on.

Several streams of data indicate how much more serious the situation is than was clear a few months ago. First, forward-looking indicators suggest that the housing sector may be in free-fall from what felt like the basement levels of a few months ago. Single family home construction may be down over the next year by as much as half from previous peak levels. There are forecasts implied by at least one property derivatives market indicating that nationwide house prices could fall from their previous peaks by as much as 25 per cent over the next several years.

2. The U.S. financial sector will be rocked— hard.

Second, it is now clear that only a small part of the financial distress that must be worked through has yet been faced. On even the most optimistic estimates, the rate of foreclosure will more than double over the next year as rates reset on subprime mortgages and home values fall. Estimates vary, but there is nearly universal agreement that – if all assets were marked to market valuations – total losses in the American financial sector would be several times the $50bn or so in write-downs that have already been announced by big financial institutions. These figures take no account of the likelihood that losses will spread to the credit card, auto and commercial property sectors. Nor do they recognise the large volume of financial instruments that depend for their high ratings on guarantees provided by credit insurers whose own health is now very much in doubt.

3. Credit, necessary for economic expansion, will become tougher to come by.

Third, the capacity of the financial system to provide credit in support of new investment on the scale necessary to maintain economic expansion is in increasing doubt. The extent of the flight to quality and its expected persistence was powerfully demonstrated last week when the yield on the two-year Treasury bond dropped below 3 per cent for the first time in years. Banks and other financial intermediaries will inevitably curtail new lending as they are hit by a perfect storm of declining capital due to mark-to-market losses, involuntary balance sheet expansion as various backstop facilities are called, and greatly reduced confidence in the creditworthiness of traditional borrowers as the economy turns downwards and asset prices fall.

Add the following:

Then there are the potentially adverse effects on confidence of a sharply falling dollar, rising energy costs, geopolitical uncertainties especially in the Middle East, or lower global growth as economic slowdown and a falling dollar cause the US no longer to fulfill its traditional role of importer of last resort.

And you have the recipe for an economic recession in the United States. Summers said:

Even if necessary changes in policy are implemented, the odds now favour a US recession that slows growth significantly on a global basis. Without stronger policy responses than have been observed to date, moreover, there is the risk that the adverse impacts will be felt for the rest of this decade and beyond.

Sunday Edition: November 25, 2007

Subprime Mortgage Crisis Growing
According to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, calculations by the Bank of America Corp. show that interest rates are set to rise on $362 billion worth of adjustable-rate subprime mortgages in 2008. Banc of America Securities, a unit of Bank of America, estimates that $85 billion in subprime mortgages will reset this quarter, another $85 billion will reset in the first quarter of 2008, and $101 billion of mortgages will reset in the second quarter of 2008. The estimates include loans packaged into securities and held in bank portfolios. In addition to the $362 billion of subprime ARMs that are scheduled to reset during 2008, Banc of America Securities said $152 billion in other loans with adjustable rates are scheduled to reset next year, including “jumbo” mortgages of more than $417,000 and Alt-A loans, a category between prime and subprime.

According to the Journal:

Many of the subprime mortgages that have driven up the default rate went bad in their first year or so, well before their interest rate had a chance to go higher… Now the real crest of the reset wave is coming, and that promises more pain for borrowers, lenders and Wall Street. Already, many subprime lenders, who focused on people with poor credit, have gone bust. Big banks and investors who made subprime loans or bought securities backed by them are reporting billions of dollars in losses… The reset peak will likely add to political pressure to help borrowers who can’t afford to pay the higher interest rates.

The Mortgage Bankers Association estimates that 1.35 million homes will enter the foreclosure process this year with another 1.44 million homes in 2008, up from 705,000 in 2005.

U.S. Recession May Harm Emerging Markets
London-based HSBC Asset Management told Reuters yesterday that an economic recession in the United States will affect emerging markets, even though some believe that decoupling from U.S. growth has taken place. Christian Deseglise, head of HSBC AM’s $85 billion global emerging markets business, told Reuters that the possibility of a U.S. recession was looking real now compared to earlier this year. Deseglise said:

Talk of recession in the US economy has increased lately so the story of decoupling from the US economy is being looked at more carefully … this may be causing the latest bout of nervousness. In February-March, there were fears but no evidence of slowdown. Now we are not dealing just with fears, but with something that is really out there. There are real issues with many sectors that may have a slowdown impact on the rest of the world.

Deseglise talked about the fallout from a U.S. recession:

If the US were to go down to one percent growth, emerging markets have the inner strength to grow within themselves. But if the US were to enter into a prolonged and severe recession that will have a detrimental effect. Emerging markets don’t need a fast growing US economy but they still need a growing US economy… I don’t think a recession is priced into the market.

HSBC Asset Management wouldn’t be the first to dispel the notion of decoupling from the United States. On November 2, I talked about how Stephen Roach, Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, told an audience in Mumbai, India, that he didn’t buy into the theory of decoupling:

I think the thing that worries me the most, and this is where I would really underscore the point for you in India, is that equity markets in this region, including your own, are discounting this optimistic, rosy scenario called decoupling. There is the strong belief that because the US has slowed so far, and Asia hasn’t, that any further slowdown will leave Asia unscathed. Think about it for a second. The slowing that’s occurred in the US right now has been in homebuilding activity. It’s America’s least global sector. You stop building a house in America, there’s almost no impact on Asian exports to the US. The slowing that will be coming over the next year will be in the consumer demand sector, which is America’s most global sector. So, we are going to see the US slowdown go from a domestically driven to a globally driven slowdown. I am sorry, as bullish as I am about Asia, Asia will not be an oasis of prosperity in a softer global demand climate. To the extent that emerging market equities are buyers of the global decoupling thesis, including in your own market right here, I think there could be a significant correction in emerging market equities that certainly could hit the Indian stock market quite hard.

Supporters of decoupling disagree. Reuters said:

Some observers say solid fiscal and monetary policy, healthy balance of payments, and China’s rise as a counterweight to the United States has helped emerging nations decouple from US growth and act as a safe haven from developed market turmoil.

In addition, they argue that the United States takes in just 16% of emerging market exports now, compared with 25% in 2001. In 2006, exports to other emerging nations overtook the volume of goods and services sent to developed nations.

Parting Shot
On the Euro Pacific Captial website, president and investment advisor Peter Schiff talked about how the actions of Wall Street and the U.S. government are forcing Gulf and Asian nations to reconsider their efforts in propping up the U.S. economy. In “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose” from November 23, Schiff said:

Perhaps the icing on this “let them eat cake” mentality was provided by Wall Street itself. In a year with record losses, Wall Street firms announced that they would also be paying record bonuses to their employees. The rationale for this PR fiasco was that since the losses were not the fault of the employees (really?), they should not be made to suffer. So rather than sharing the pain being endured by their firms’ shareholders (clearly even less culpable then themselves), Wall Street’s fat cats will rub salt in their owners’ wounds by compounding their losses with the additional expense of lavish bonuses. Following the outlandish pay packages already given to ousted CEO’s who clearly were responsible for the losses, Wall Street’s “heads we win, tails you lose” attitude will not go over well abroad.

Enjoy it while it lasts… which won’t be for much longer.

Have a wonderful week,

Christopher E. Hill
Editor
editor@boom2bust.com

Gold: Barbarous Relic Or Investment Superstar? Part 2

In part one of a three-part series on gold, I noted that the price of the metal has risen significantly in the past year, despite all the arguments leveled against gold by its detractors. Meanwhile, the metal looks to be headed for its seventh straight annual gain. Gold bulls point to the following as having a significant impact on its price in 2007:

U.S. Dollar Weakness- The U.S. currency is down four out of the last five years, and has dropped almost 11% so far this year based on the Federal Reserve’s U.S. Trade-Weighted Major Currency Index. This autumn it’s been at its weakest against the euro since the European currency started trading in 1999, the lowest against the Canadian dollar since it was floated in 1950, and at a 26-year low versus the British pound. The end of the U.S. housing boom, the subprime mortgage crisis, and a credit crunch, in conjunction with forecasts for a slowing U.S. economy, have weighed down the U.S. currency. The increased threats from dollar diversification by countries holding large numbers of greenbacks in their foreign currency reserves, sovereign wealth funds looking to exchange their dollars for other assets, and more nations looking to decouple their currencies from the U.S. dollar have only made matters worse for the world’s reserve currency. Assuming the existence of a strategic inverse relationship between gold and the greenback, investors have poured money into the precious metal and related investment vehicles. Validating such actions have been forecasts by legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, Jim Rogers, and George Soros, who all predict that the U.S. dollar is going lower. Back on October 25, Buffett was quoted by CNBC as saying, “We are still negative on the dollar. We bought stocks in companies that are earning their money in other currencies.” On November 15, Rogers told Bloomberg that, “If you have dollars, I urge you to get out. That’s not a currency to own.” Finally, on June 2, AME Info reported that Soros said, “A slowdown in the United States will be transmitted to the rest of the world via a weaker dollar.”

Geopolitical Risk- The continuing stalemate between the West and Iran over its nuclear program, political instability in Pakistan, and Turkey’s spat with Iraq are just some of the more recent geopolitical risks that have driven the price of gold higher. The ever-present danger from Al-Qaeda should not be forgotten either. Consider the following warning from Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where for 6 years he was in charge of the search for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. When asked by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty earlier this year if he expected more attacks on the United States or in the West on the scale of September 11, 2001, Scheuer’s response was:

Oh, I think greater than 9/11. I don’t think it will happen in Europe, but I do think it will happen in the United States. Bin Laden has been very clear that each of Al-Qaeda’s attacks on America will be greater than the last, and I think the only reason we haven’t seen an attack so far is that he doesn’t have that attack prepared. But when he does, he will use it. And try to get us out of the way, which of course is his main goal.

Stephen Walker, director of global mining research at RBC Capital Markets, said last week that increasing geopolitical risk, combined with combined with rising economic uncertainty, “should continue to provide incentives for investors to increase their exposure to gold as a safe haven.”

Supply and Demand- Last Friday, the Telegraph (UK) announced:

The era of ‘peak gold’ has arrived. Try as they might, miners cannot find enough ore at viable costs to replace their fast-depleting reserves, even if they dig miles into the centre of the earth.

The global mine supply of gold peaked in 2002, and has fallen every year since. Last year alone, the mine supply of gold fell 15%. Also in 2006, South Africa, the world’s single-largest gold producer, produced its lowest amount of gold since 1922 with overall output down 72% since its 1970 peak. It should be noted that no major new mine production is expected in the near-term either.

On the demand side, RBC Capital Markets noted last Wednesday that demand is rising as consumption increases in China, India, and the Middle East. On Thursday, a study by precious metals consultant GFMS Ltd. showed that global gold demand in the third quarter rose 19% year-on-year on the back of robust inflows into bullion investment funds and improved jewelry consumption. The report revealed that the increase in investment demand replaced jewelry buying as the major source of growth for the third quarter. Demand grew sharply in India, China, Turkey, and the Middle East, while it slowed in the United States.

Outside of U.S. dollar weakness, geopolitical risk, and supply/demand factors, gold bulls say that some of the drawbacks which Bloomberg’s Michael Sesit spelled out in part one are actually advantages to owning the precious metal. Critics of gold like to point out that it “doesn’t earn a return.” Michael J. Kosares, President and Founder of Centennial Precious Metals, Inc., argued in his book The ABCs of Gold Investing, that:

Those who criticize gold because it fails to offer a return do not really understand gold’s position as the fixed North Star of asset value around which all other assets rotate. Gold is a stand-alone asset. It relies on no individual or institution for value. Gold investors prefer it this way. In the ultimate sense, this is what money is and what money should be.

Another criticism directed at gold, said Sesit, is “the world’s biggest holders of gold, major central banks, aren’t overly eager to keep owning it.” If so, gold bulls ask why central banks hesitate to unload the metal. In 2006, net central bank sales amounted to just 319 tons, less than half of the 659 tons recorded in the previous year.

Love it or hate it, bulls and bears, gold is here to stay. In the final part of this series, I will talk about where this precious metal may go from here.

(Part 3 will be posted on Wednesday)

Doubting The Dollar

It’s being reported today that the central bank governor of the United Arab Emirates, Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi, said that the continuing weakness of the U.S. dollar could lead to a review of the dirham’s peg to the dollar. The U.S. currency has fallen 10% against the euro this year, making imports for Gulf Arab states more expensive and helping push inflation in the U.A.E. to the second-highest level in the region. Kathy Lien, currency strategist at Forex Capital Markets, told MarketWatch:

The dollar stands to suffer from reserve diversification. The central bank governor of the U.A.E said today that they may drop their dollar peg in favor of a currency basket including the euro to contain inflation… Even though the reserves held by the U.A.E. are relatively small, if the move becomes official, it would be symbolically important because it suggests that other Gulf nations could follow suit.

Other analysts are more certain about the intentions of the U.A.E. Caroline Grad, an economist with Deutsche Bank AG in London, told Bloomberg today:

Today’s comments reinforce our view the dirham is the currency most likely to move away from its dollar peg following Kuwait’s move earlier this year. Although the U.A.E. has said it doesn’t intend to unilaterally abandon the dollar peg, we don’t rule out a move without the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

In May, Kuwait abandoned the dinar’s peg to the U.S. dollar in favor of a basket of international currencies. Today’s statement by the U.A.E. official fuels speculation that the Gulf Cooperation Council states, which include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, may follow Kuwait and drop the peg between their currencies and the greenback.

“I wouldn’t bet against the U.S. as the world’s reserve currency,” former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, now chairman of Cerberus Capital Management in New York, told Bloomberg yesterday. “The dollar markets are so deep and so liquid and the American economy is so fundamentally advanced,” he adds.

Yet, even Bloomberg recognized today that:

Concern is growing that the dollar’s weakness may augur the end of the U.S. currency’s 62-year reign as the world’s main international currency for trade, financial transactions and central-bank reserves.

South Korea’s central bank urged shipbuilders this week to issue invoices in won, the South Korean currency, and increase hedging policies against the weakened dollar. Last weekend, Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim bin Jaber al-Thani, complained that the declining value of the U.S. currency is significantly curtailing the country’s oil and gas income, leaving less to invest abroad. The central bank in Iraq last month said it, too, wants to diversify its reserves away from mostly U.S. dollars (no typo here- that’s Iraq, which the U.S. has occupied since 2003). It was even reported by the Telegraph (UK) back on September 21 that the United States’ closest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, refused to cut interest rates in conjunction with the Federal Reserve for the first time, “signaling that the oil-rich Gulf kingdom is preparing to break the dollar currency peg in a move that risks setting off a stampede out of the dollar across the Middle East.”

Despite the bleak outlook, the dollar rose against most of its major foreign-exchange counterparts Thursday.

Sovereign Wealth Funds Buying Up Gold, Other Commodities

No surprise here. Late Monday night the Financial Times (UK) reported:

State-owned sovereign wealth funds are beginning to diversify their investments into commodities, potentially having a significant impact on international raw material prices because of their immense resources.

Sovereign wealth funds, or SWFs, are investment vehicles backed by governments in the Middle East, China, Russia, and elsewhere. According to The Times (UK) from October 28:

Sovereign funds have been around since 1953, when the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) was established to benefit future generations of Kuwaitis when the oil stopped flowing. But it is only since the turn of the millennium that the power of sovereign funds has mushroomed. The rising price of oil and gas has prompted Middle East countries to look for new ways to invest their piles of cash. Russia has money to spare as energy prices have soared. At the same time, funds in Singapore, and more particularly China, have been boosted by income from huge trade surpluses.

The Financial Times is reporting that the total investment of SWFs in natural resources is still below 5% of their total allocations. Still, Katherine Spector, head of energy strategy at JPMorgan in New York, noted that, “While macro-data on sovereign money is elusive, anecdotally we see meaningful flows into commodities from the Middle East, Europe and Asia.” The Deutsche Bank said with worldwide state reserves above $3 trillion, any movement into the relatively small commodities markets could influence prices. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that total investments by sovereign funds have reached $2 trillion and are forecast to hit $12 trillion by 2012.

On the reasons for SWFs buying up commodities, a senior banker interviewed by the Financial Times said, “They want to use commodities, and particularly gold, as a hedge against the US dollar weakness,” adding that the investments were mainly streaming in from the Middle East and Asia. Another banker stated, “They want commodities exposure exactly for the same reason as other institutional investors- diversification.”