Showing posts with label Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bank. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Top Two Ways to Store Wealth Abroad

Nick Giambruno sits down with Doug Casey to get his take on what his favorite places and ways to store our wealth abroad.

Nick Giambruno: For centuries, wealthy people have used international diversification to protect their savings and themselves from out of control governments. Now, thanks to modern technology, anyone can implement similar strategies. Doug, I’d like to discuss some of the basic ways regular people can internationally diversify their savings. For an American, what’s the difference between having a bank account at Bank of America and having a foreign bank account?

Doug Casey: I’d say there is possibly all the difference in the world. The entire world’s banking system today is shaky, but if you go international, you can find much more solid banks than those that we have here in the US. That’s important, but beyond that, you’ve got to diversify your political risk. And if you have your bank account in a US bank, it’s eligible to being seized by any number of government agencies or by a frivolous lawsuit. So besides finding a more solid bank, by having your liquid assets in a different political jurisdiction you insulate yourself from a lot of other risks as well.

Nick Giambruno: Moving some of your savings abroad also allows you to preempt capital controls (restrictions on moving money out of the country) and the destructive measures that always follow.

Doug Casey: This is a very serious consideration. When the going gets tough, governments never control themselves, but they do try to control their subjects. It’s likely that the US is going to have official capital controls in the future. This means that if you don’t have money outside of the US, it’s going to become very inconvenient and/or very expensive to get money out.

Nick Giambruno: Why do you think the US government would institute capital controls?

Doug Casey: Well, there are about $7 - 8 trillion, nobody knows for sure, outside of the US, and those are like a ticking time bomb. Foreigners don’t have to hold those dollars. Americans have to hold the dollars. If you’re going to trade within the US, you must use US dollars, both legally and practically. Foreigners don’t have to, and at some point they may perceive those dollars as being the hot potatoes they are. And the US government might say that we can’t have Americans investing outside the country, perhaps not even spending a significant amount outside the country, because they are just going to add to this giant pile of dollars. There are all kinds of reasons that they could come up with.

We already have de facto capital controls, quite frankly, even though there’s no law at the moment saying that an American can’t invest abroad or take money out of the country. The problem is because of other US laws, like FATCA, finding a foreign bank or a foreign broker who will accept your account is very hard. Very, very few of them will take American accounts anymore because the laws make it unprofitable, inconvenient, and dangerous, so they don’t bother. So it’s not currently against the law, but it’s already very hard.

Nick Giambruno: What forms of savings are good candidates to take abroad? Gold coins? Foreign real estate?

Doug Casey: Well, you put your finger on exactly the two that I was going to mention. Everybody should own gold coins because they are money in its most basic form—something that a lot of people have forgotten. Gold is the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously somebody else’s liability. 

And if your gold is outside the US, it gives you another degree of insulation should the United States decide that you shouldn’t own it—it’s not a reportable asset currently. If you have $1 million of cash in a bank account abroad, you must report that to the US government every year. If you have $1 million worth of gold coins in a foreign safe deposit box, however, that is not reportable, and that’s a big plus.

So gold is one thing. The second thing, of course is real estate. There are many advantages to foreign real estate. Sometimes it’s vastly cheaper than in the US. Foreign real estate is also not a reportable asset to the US government.

Nick Giambruno: Foreign real estate is a good way to internationally diversify a big chunk of your savings. What are the chances that your home government could confiscate foreign real estate? It’s pretty close to zero.

Doug Casey: I’d say it’s just about zero because they can make you repatriate the cash in your foreign bank account, but what can they make you do with the real estate? Would they tell you to sell it? Well, it’s not likely.

Also, if things go sideways in your country, it’s good to have a second place you can transplant yourself to. And I know that it’s unbelievable for most people to think anything could go wrong in their home country—a lot of Germans thought that in the ’20s, a lot of Russians thought that in the early teens, a lot of Vietnamese thought that in the ’60s, a lot of Cubans thought that in the ’50s. It could happen anywhere.

Nick Giambruno: Besides savings, what else can people diversify? How does a second passport fit into the mix?

Doug Casey: It’s still quite possible—and completely legal—for an American to have a citizenship in a second country, and it offers many advantages. As for opening up foreign bank accounts, if you show them an American passport, they’ll likely tell you to go away. Once again, obtaining a foreign bank or brokerage account is extremely hard for Americans today—that door has been closing for some time and is nearly slammed shut now. But if you show a foreign bank a Paraguayan or a Panamanian or any other passport, they’ll welcome you as a customer.

Nick Giambruno: The police state is metastasizing in the US. Is that a good reason to diversify as well?

Doug Casey: It’s a harbinger, I’m afraid, of what’s to come. The fact is that police forces throughout the US have been militarized. Every little town has a SWAT team, sometimes with armored personnel carriers. All of the Praetorian style agencies on the federal level—the FBI, CIA, NSA, and over a dozen others like them—have become very aggressive. 

Every single day in the US, there are scores of confiscations of people’s bank accounts, and dozens having their doors broken down in the wee hours of the night. The ethos in the US really seems to be changing right before our very eyes, and I think it’s quite disturbing.

You can be accused of almost anything by the government and have your assets seized without due process. Every year there are billions of dollars that are seized by various government entities, including local police departments, who get to keep a percentage of the proceeds, so this is a very corrupting thing.

People forget that when the US was founded there were only three federal crimes, and they are listed in the Constitution: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Now it’s estimated there are over 5,000 federal crimes, and that number is constantly increasing. This is very disturbing. There is a book called Three Felonies a Day, which estimates that many or most Americans inadvertently commit three felonies a day. So it’s becoming Kafkaesque.

Nick Giambruno: Thanks, Doug. Until next time.

Doug Casey: Thanks, Nick.

Editor’s Note: The US is nearing the worst financial disaster of our lifetimes. It’s inevitable. And it’s the single biggest threat to your financial future.

Fortunately, you can learn the ultimate strategy for turning the coming crisis into a wealth-building opportunity in this urgent video from New York Times best selling author Doug Casey.

Click Here to Watch it Now





Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Friday, February 19, 2016

These Important Stocks are Trading Like a Financial Crisis Has Begun

By Justin Spittler

European bank stocks are crashing. Deutsche Bank (DB), Germany’s largest bank, has plunged 36% this year. Its stock is at an all time low. Credit Suisse (CS), a major Swiss bank, has plummeted 40% this year to its lowest level since 1991. As you can see in the chart below, the STOXX Europe 600 Banks Index, which tracks Europe’s biggest banks, is down 27% this year. It’s fallen six weeks in a row, its longest losing streak since the 2008 financial crisis.


These are huge drops in a short six week period. It’s the kind of price action you’d expect to see during a major financial crisis. The sell off in Europe’s banks has dragged down other European stocks. The STOXX Europe 600 Index, which tracks 600 large European stocks, is down 15% this year to its lowest level since October 2013.

European banks are struggling to make money…..
Deutsche Bank lost €2.12 billion for the fourth quarter… after making a €437 million profit the year before. Credit Suisse lost €5.83 billion last quarter… after making a €691 million profit the year before. Profits at BNP Paribas (BNP.PA), France’s largest bank, plunged 52% last quarter.

Europe’s crazy monetary policies are starving banks of income..…
Dispatch readers know the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at effectively zero since 2008. The European Central Bank (ECB), Europe’s version of the Fed, also cut rates after the global financial crisis. Unlike the Fed, the ECB didn’t stop at zero. The ECB dropped its key rate to -0.1% in June 2014. It was the first major central bank to introduce negative interest rates. Today, its key rate is -0.3%.

The ECB’s key rate of -0.3% sets the tone for all interest rates in Europe..…
It forces banks to charge a rock-bottom interest rate on loans. This has eaten away at bank profits, as The Wall Street Journal reports:
Very low interest rates hurt the profits banks make on loans, especially when investors believe loose monetary policy is here to stay. Long term rates at which banks lend then fall to be little more than short-term ones at which banks borrow.

The idea of negative interest rates likely sounds bizarre to you..…
After all, the whole purpose of lending money is to earn interest. With negative rates, the lender pays the borrower. So, if you lend $100,000 at -1%, you’ll only get back $99,000.  Negative interest rates are a scheme to get people to spend more money.

According to mainstream economists, spending drives the economy. By cutting its key interest rate to less than zero, the ECB is making it impossible for people to earn interest on their savings. This discourages saving and encourages spending.

But as Casey Research founder Doug Casey says, this isn’t just wrong, it’s the exact opposite of what’s true. Spending doesn’t drive the economy. Production and saving drive the economy. You have to save to build capital, and capital is necessary for everything.

Negative rates haven’t helped Europe’s economy…
Europe’s economy grew at just 0.3% during the third quarter. Europe’s unemployment rate is up to 9%, nearly double the U.S. unemployment rate. And the euro has also lost 17% of its value against the U.S. dollar since June 2014.

If you’ve been reading the Dispatch, you know negative interest rates are a new government scheme..…
Until recently, negative interest rates didn’t exist. Governments invented them to push us further into “Alice in Wonderland.” That’s our nickname for today’s economy, where eight years of extremely low interest rates have warped prices of stocks, bonds, real estate, and nearly everything else.  

For months, we’ve been warning that negative rates are dangerous. Last month, Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, joined the list of countries using negative rates. Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland all have negative rates, too. According to The Wall Street Journal, countries that account for 23% of global output now have negative interest rates. 

This has set the stage for a huge economic disaster..…
To avoid big losses, we recommend owning physical gold. Unlike paper money, central bankers can’t destroy gold’s value with bad policies. Instead, gold’s value usually rises when governments devalue their currencies.

For example, Europe’s currency (the euro) has lost 17% of its value against the dollar since June 2014. But the price of gold measured in euros is up 14% in the same period. We recently put a short presentation together that explains the best ways to “crisis proof” your wealth.  We encourage you to watch this free video here.

Chart of the Day

Deutsche Bank’s stock has been destroyed. Today’s chart shows Deutsche Bank plummeting 46% over the past year. Yesterday, it hit an all time low. Today, Deutsche Bank jumped 10% after the company said it’s considering a bond buyback program. The company hopes this will ease investor concerns.

E.B. Tucker, editor of The Casey Report, doesn’t think the plan will work:
Deutsche Bank is in trouble. It barely survived the last crisis. In the aftermath, it took tremendous risks to make as much profit as possible. But its winning streak is coming to an end… and it still has to pay for all its obligations. Deutsche Bank also has problems beyond its control. Europe isn’t growing. It’s also dealing with negative interest rates. This is a double whammy for big banks, especially ones that took on too much risk.



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Janet Yellen: The Best Pick Pocket in the USA

By Tony Sagami

“Some of the experiences [in Europe] suggest maybe we can use negative interest rates.”
—William Dudley, President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank

“We see now in the past few years that it [negative interest rates] has been made to work in some European countries. So I would think that in a future episode that the Fed would consider it.”
Ben Bernanke

“Indeed, I would be open to the possibility of reducing the fed funds target funds range even further, as a way of producing better labor market outcomes.”
—Narayana Kocherlakota, President of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank

If you are planning to travel to any major European city, you better watch your wallet because there are thousands of very skilled pickpockets looking to separate you from your valuables. Those pickpockets, however, will only get away with however much money you have in your wallet. Sure, a pickpocket can throw a major monkey wrench into your vacation, but the amount these European thieves take from you is peanuts compared to what Fed head Janet Yellen wants to steal from your bank account.

While Wall Street experts and CNBC talking heads regularly debate the "will they or wont they" interest rate liftoff, a more important question is whether or not the Federal Reserve will follow the European model of negative interest rates. Negative interest rates are nothing unusual in Europe as several central banks lowered key interest rates below 0%.


Yup, that means investors essentially pay a fee to park their money.

That parking fee just got higher last week when the European Central Bank cut its already negative deposit rate from minus 0.2% to minus 0.3%. The ECB also expanded is current quantitative easing program. The European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank, and the Danish National Bank all have interest rates below zero. In fact, the Danes have held their overnight rates at negative 0.75% since 2012.

The Swiss, however, are the undisputed leaders of the negative interest rate experiment. The SNB first moved to negative rates in December 2014 and then dropped rates to negative 0.75% in January of this year. The Swiss National Bank, by the way, meets in a couple of days, on December 10, and is widely expected to cut rates again.

The question, of course, is how negative can interest rates go? Before the end of December, I expect deposit rates in Switzerland to be between -100bps and -125bps. Remember, we’re not talking about some backwater, third world countries here. Switzerland and Germany are two of the wealthiest countries in the world, as well as the home of major financial and political centers.

And I’m not just talking about short term paper either. Finland, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Japan are all selling five year debt with negative yields. In fact, Switzerland became the first country in history to sell benchmark 10 year debt at a negative interest rate in April.

Don’t think that negative interest rates can happen in the US? Wrong!

You may have missed it, but the United States is now also a member of the “0% club”—most recently in October, when it sold $21 billion worth of 3 month bills at 0% interest.


However, that is not the first time. Since 2008, the US government has held 46 Treasury bill auctions where yields have been zero. The next step after zero is negative… and it’s becoming a real possibility. Welcome to the European model of starving savers to death!

The implications for investors are monumental.

Ask yourself, what would you do with your money if your bank started to charge you to deposit it there? Would you pay hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars a year just to keep your money in a bank?

Option #1: Hold your nose and pay the fees.
Option #2: Move those dollars into the stock market; perhaps into dividend paying stocks.
Option #3: Buy real estate; perhaps income generating real estate.
Option #4: Invest in collectibles, like art or classic cars.
Option #5: Stuff your money under a mattress.


The point I am trying to make is, the rules for successful income investing have completely changed. If you are living (or plan on living) off the earnings of your savings, you better adapt your strategy to the new world of negative interest rates…..or plan on working as a Walmart greeter during your golden years.


Even if you think I’m nuts about negative interest rates coming to the US, there is no doubt that interest rates are not climbing anytime soon.

According to the Federal Reserve.....
"The Committee anticipates that inflation will remain quite low in the coming months.”
“The stance of monetary policy will likely remain highly accommodative for quite some time after the initial increase in the federal funds rate.”

With the US national debt approaching $19 trillion, our government doesn’t have any choice but to keep interest rates low. Sadly, our politicians are paying for their spendthrift ways by starving responsible savers.
But you can (and should) fight back by changing the way you think about investing for income. You can start by giving my high yield income letter, Yield Shark, a risk free try with 90 day money back guarantee.

Tony Sagami
Tony Sagami

30 year market expert Tony Sagami leads the Yield Shark and Rational Bear advisories at Mauldin Economics. To learn more about Yield Shark and how it helps you maximize dividend income, click here.

To learn more about Rational Bear and how you can use it to benefit from falling stocks and sectors, click here.



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Sunday, November 15, 2015

The “Bloodbath” in Canada Is Far From Over

By Justin Spittler

The oil price crash continues to claim victims…and many of them are in Canada.The price of oil hovered around $100 for most of last summer. Today, it’s trading for less than $45. Weak oil prices have pummeled huge oil companies. The SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP), which tracks the performance of major U.S. oil producers, has declined 36% over the past year. The Market Vectors Oil Services ETF (OIH), which tracks U.S. oil services companies, has declined 30% since last November. Weak oil prices have even pushed entire countries to the brink. Saudi Arabia, which produces more oil than any country in the world, is on track to post its first budget deficit since 2009 this year. If oil prices stay low, the country could burn through its massive $650 million pile of foreign reserves within five years.

Oil’s collapse is also creating big problems for Canada’s economy.....

Canada is the world’s sixth largest oil producer. Oil makes up 25% of its exports. Last month, The Conference Board of Canada said it expects sales for Canada’s energy sector to fall 22% this year. It also expects the industry to record a net loss of about C$2.1 billion ($1.6 billion) in 2015. That’s a drastic change from last year, when the industry booked a C$6 billion ($4.5 billion) profit.

Major oil firms are slashing spending to cope with low prices. Last month, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A) said it would stop construction on an 80,000 barrels per day (bpd) project in western Canada. The company had already abandoned another 200,000 bpd project in northern Canada earlier this year. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates that Canadian oil and gas companies have laid off 36,000 workers since last summer. Most of these layoffs happened in the province of Alberta.

For the past decade, Alberta was Canada’s fastest growing province.....

Its economy exploded, thanks to the booming market for Canadian tar sands. Tar sand is a gooey sand and oil mixture that melts down with heat from burning natural gas. More than half of Canada’s oil production comes from tar sands. In Alberta, they account for 75% of oil production.

Tar sand is generally more expensive to produce than conventional crude oil. Canadian tar sand projects made sense when oil hovered around $100. But many of these projects can’t make money when oil trades for $45/barrel. Last year, Scotiabank (BNS) said the average breakeven point for new Canadian oil sand projects was around $65/barrel. This is why giant oil companies are walking away from projects they’ve spent years and billions of dollars developing.

All these cancelled oil projects are making Alberta’s economy unravel.....

Alberta lost 63,500 jobs from the start of year through August. It hasn’t lost that many jobs during the first eight months of the year since the Great Recession. The decline in oil production is also draining government resources. Last month, Reuters reported that Alberta was on track to post a $4.6 billion budget deficit this year. Economists say it could be another five years before Alberta runs a budget surplus. The crisis isn’t confined to the oil patches either.

A real estate crisis is unfolding in Calgary.....

Calgary is home to 1.2 million people. It’s the largest city in Alberta and the third largest in Canada. On Tuesday, Bloomberg Business reported that Calgary’s property market is starting to crack:
Vacancy is already at a five-year high in Calgary and rents are the lowest since 2006 after thousands of office jobs were cut. In downtown Calgary, the vacancy rate jumped to 14 percent in the third quarter, the highest since 2010 and compared with 5 percent for downtown Toronto, according to CBRE Group Inc. .... That doesn’t include as much as 2 million square feet of so-called "shadow vacancy" or space leased but sitting empty, which would push vacancy to 16 percent, the most since the mid-1980s.
Demand for office space is falling because of massive layoffs in the oil industry. That’s because oil companies didn’t just lay off roughnecks. They also laid off oil traders and middle managers, which means they need a lot less office space. According to Bloomberg Business, a principal at one Calgary real estate office called the situation “a bloodbath” and said “we’re at the highest point of fear and uncertainty now.”

Casey readers know the time to buy is when there’s blood in the streets.....

But it looks like Calgary’s property crisis is just getting started. Bloomberg Business reports that the city has five new office towers in the works. These projects will add about 3.8 million square feet to Calgary’s office market over the next three years. More office space will only put more pressure on rents and occupancy rates. Real estate developers likely planned these projects because they thought Canada’s oil boom would last. It’s that same thinking that made oil companies invest billions of dollars in projects that can’t make money when oil trades for less than $100/barrel.

Doug Casey saw this coming.....

In September, Doug went to Alberta to assess the damage first-hand. E.B. Tucker, editor of The Casey Report, joined Doug on the trip. Doug and E.B. spoke with the locals. They even tried to buy a Ferrari. They shared their experience in the October issue of The Casey Report.

E.B. went on record saying Canada was in for “a major wakeup call.” He still thinks that’s the case. In fact, he thinks the situation is going to get a lot worse.
When we were in Alberta, we heard over and over again "It'll come right back...it always does." It's not coming back. I expect the situation to get worse. And I see the Canadian dollar going much lower.
When that happens, E.B. thinks Canada’s central bank might do something it’s never done before:
Vacancy rates are rising in Canada’s heartland cities. Jobs in Alberta are disappearing. Unemployment is climbing. And there’s still a global oversupply in oil. None of this bodes well for Canada’s economy. Canada’s economy is in a midair stall. The locals certainly didn’t grasp this when we visited Alberta last month. That's usually the case when things are going from bad to a lot worse. If you’re a central banker in Canada looking at the data, there’s only one decision: print.

E.B. says Canada’s central bank will launch its own quantitative easing (QE) program.....

QE is when a central bank creates money and pumps it into the financial system. It’s basically another term for money printing. Since 2008, the Fed has used QE to inject $3.5 trillion into the U.S. financial system. If the Fed’s experience with QE is any indication, money printing wouldn’t help Canada’s “real” economy much. But it would inflate asset prices. That, in turn, would only make Canada’s economy even more fragile. E.B. is confident the situation in Canada will get worse. And he can’t wait to go back to Canada to collect on bets he made during his last visit:
Doug and I made a lot of side bets with business owners during our visit. One of them promised to sell us a Ferrari if things got worse...that's how sure he was that we were wrong. Looks like we'll be headed back to collect on that one.

You can read all about Doug and E.B.’s visit to Alberta by signing up for a risk free trial of The Casey Report. You’ll even discover how to make money off the oil industry, despite the collapse in the price of oil. Click here to learn more.

The article The “Bloodbath” in Canada Is Far From Over was originally published at caseyresearch.com.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Thursday, May 7, 2015

A Powerful Weapon of Financial Warfare--The US Treasury's Kiss of Death

By Nick Giambruno

It’s an amazingly powerful weapon that only the US government can wield—kicking anyone it doesn’t like out of the world’s US dollar based financial system.

It’s a weapon foreign banks fear. A sound institution can be rendered insolvent at the flip of a switch that the US government controls. It would be akin to an economic kiss of death. When applied to entire countries—such as the case with Iran—it’s like a nuclear attack on the country’s financial system.

That is because, thanks to the petrodollar regime, the US dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, and that indirectly gives the US a chokehold on international trade.

For example, if a company in Italy wants to buy products made in India, the Indian seller probably will want to be paid in US dollars. So the company in Italy first needs to purchase those dollars on the foreign exchange market. But it can’t do so without involving a bank that is permitted to operate in the US. And no such bank will cooperate if it finds that the Italian company is on any of Washington’s bad-boy lists.

The US dollar may be just a facilitator for an international transaction unrelated to any product or service tied to the US, but it’s a facilitator most buyers and sellers in world markets want to use. Thus Uncle Sam’s ability to say “no dollars for you” gives it tremendous leverage to pressure other countries.

The BRICS countries have been trying to move toward a more multipolar international financial system, but it’s an arduous process. Any weakening of the US government’s ability to use the dollar as a stick to compel compliance is likely years away.

When the time comes, no country will care about losing access to the US financial system any more than it would worry today about being shut out of the peso-based Mexican financial system. But for a while yet, losing Uncle Sam’s blessing still can be an economic kiss of death, as the recent experience of Banca Privada d’Andorra shows.

Andorra, a Peculiar Country Without a Central Bank


The Principality of Andorra is a tiny jurisdiction sandwiched between Spain and France in the eastern Pyrenees mountains. It hasn’t joined the EU and thus is not burdened by every edict passed down in Brussels. However, as a matter of practice, the euro is in general use. Interestingly, the country does not have a central bank.

Andorra is a renowned offshore banking jurisdiction. Banking is the country’s second-biggest source of income, after tourism. Its five banks had made names for themselves by being particularly well capitalized, welcoming to nonresidents (even Americans), and willing to work with offshore companies and international trusts.

One Andorran bank that had been recommended prominently by others (but not by International Man) is Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA).

Recently BPA received the financial kiss of death from FinCEN, the US Treasury Department’s financial crimes bureau. FinCEN accused BPA of laundering money for individuals in Russia, China, and Venezuela—interestingly, all geopolitical rivals of the US.

Never mind that unlike murder, robbery and rape, money laundering is a victimless, make-believe crime invented by US politicians.

But let’s set that argument aside and assume that money laundering is indeed a real crime. While FinCEN seems to enjoy pointing the money laundering finger here and there, it never mentions that New York and London are among of the busiest money laundering centers in the world, which underscores the political, not criminal, nature of their accusations.

And that’s all it takes, a mere accusation from FinCEN to shatter the reputation of a foreign bank and the confidence of its depositors.

The foreign bank has little recourse. There is no adjudication to determine whether the accusation has any merit nor is there any opportunity for the bank to make a defense to stop the damage to its reputation.
And not even the most solvent foreign banks—such as BPA—are immune.

Shortly after FinCEN made its accusation public, BPA’s global correspondent accounts—which allow it to conduct international transactions—were closed. No other bank wants to risk Washington’s ire by doing business with a blacklisted institution. BPA was effectively banned from the international financial system.

This predictably led to an evaporation of confidence by BPA’s depositors. To prevent a run on the bank, the Andorran government took BPA under its administration and imposed a €2,500 per week withdrawal limit on depositors.

However, it’s not just BPA that is feeling the results of Washington’s displeasure. FinCEN’s accusation against BPA is sending a shockwave that is shaking Andorra to its core.

The ordeal has led S&P to downgrade Andorra’s credit rating, noting that “The risk profile of Andorra’s financial sector, which is large relative to the size of the domestic economy, has increased beyond our expectations.”

For comparison, BPA’s assets amount to €3 billion, and the Andorran government’s annual budget is only €400 million. There is no way the government could bail out BPA even if it wanted to.

The last time there was a banking crisis in a European country with an oversized financial sector, many depositors were blindsided with a bail-in and lost most, or in some cases, all of their money over €100,000.
While the damage to BPA’s customers appears to be contained for the moment, it remains to be seen whether Andorra turns into the next Cyprus.

BPA is hardly the only example of a US government attack on a foreign bank. In a similar fashion in 2013, the US effectively shut down Bank Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, which, like BPA, operated without branches in the US.

To appreciate the brazen overreach that has become routine for FinCEN, it helps to examine matters from an alternative perspective.

Imagine that China was the world’s dominant financial power instead of the US and it had the power to enforce its will and trample over the sovereignty of other countries. Imagine bureaucrats in Beijing having the power to effectively shut down any bank in the world. Imagine those same bureaucrats accusing BNY Mellon (Bank of New York is the oldest bank in the US) of breaking some Chinese financial law and cutting it off from the international financial system, causing a crisis of confidence and effectively shuttering it.

In a world of fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking, that is a power—a financial weapon—that the steward of the international financial system wields.

Currently, that steward is the US. It remains to be seen whether or not the BRICS will learn to be just as overbearing once their parallel international financial system is up and running.

In any case, the new system will give the world an alternative, and that will be a good thing.

But regardless of what the international financial system is going to look like, you should take action now to protect yourself from getting caught in the crossfire when financial weapons are going off.

One way to make sure your savings don’t go poof the next time some bureaucrat at FinCEN decides a bank did something that they didn’t like is to offshore your money into safe jurisdictions. And we've put together an in-depth video presentation to help you do just that. It's called, "Internationalizing Your Assets."

Our all-star panel of experts, with Doug Casey and Peter Schiff, provide low cost options for international diversification that anyone can implement - including how to safely set up foreign storage for your gold and silver bullion and how to move your savings abroad without triggering invasive reporting requirements.

This is a must watch video for any investor and it's completely free. Click here to watch Internationalizing Your Assets right now. 

The article was originally published at internationalman.com.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

The Third and Final Transformation of Monetary Policy

By John Mauldin

The law of unintended consequences is becoming ever more prominent in the economic sphere, as the world becomes exponentially more complex with every passing year. Just as a network grows in complexity and value as the number of connections in that network grows, the global economy becomes more complex, interesting, and hard to manage as the number of individuals, businesses, governmental bodies, and other institutions swells, all of them interconnected by contracts and security instruments, as well as by financial and information flows.

It is hubris to presume, as current economic thinking does, that the entire economic world can be managed by manipulating one (albeit major) subset of that network without incurring unintended consequences for the other parts of the network. To be sure, unintended consequences can be positive or neutral or negative. This letter you are reading, which I’ve been writing for over 15 years and which reaches far more people than I would have ever dreamed possible, is partially the result of a serendipitous unintended consequence.

Energy sector earnings season is coming to a close, how did our traders bank their biggest profits ever?...Watch Free Video Here

But as every programmer knows, messing with a tiny bit of the code in a very complex program can have significant ramifications, perhaps to the point of crashing the program. I have a new Microsoft Surface Pro 3 tablet that I’m trying to get used to, but somehow my heretofore reliable Mozilla Firefox browser isn’t playing nice with this computer. I’m sure it’s a simple bug or incompatibility somewhere, but my team and I have not been able to isolate it.

However, that’s a relatively minor problem compared to the unintended consequences that spill from quantitative easing, ZIRP, and other central bank shenanigans. We have discussed the problem of how the Federal Reserve has pushed dollars on the rest of the world and is playing havoc with dollar inflows and outflows from emerging markets. More than one EM central banker is complaining aggressively.
My good friend Dr. Woody Brock makes the case that an unintended consequence of QE is that the Federal Reserve’s normal transmission of monetary policy through periodic changes in the fed funds rate has been vitiated. He contends that soon we will no longer care about the fed funds rate and will be focused on other sets of rates.

This is an important issue and one that is not well understood. Woody has given me permission to reproduce his quarterly profile. For Woody, this is actually a fairly short piece; but as usual with Woody’s work, you will probably want to read it twice.

Woody is one of the most brilliant economists I know, and I make a point of spending time with him as our schedules permit. We are making plans to get together at his Massachusetts retreat in August. He is restructuring his business in order to spend more time writing and less time traveling, and he intends to lower the price of his subscription. It will still be pricey for the average reader, but for funds and institutions it should be a staple. You can find his website at www.SEDinc.com or email him at SED@SEDinc.com.

Before we go to Woody’s letter, if you’re going to be at my conference this coming week, you’ve already made arrangements. I know a lot of people wanted to go but just couldn’t work it into their schedules. I won’t say it’s the next best thing to being there, but you can follow me on Twitter, where my team and I will be sending out real time tweets about the important ideas and concepts we are hearing, not just from the speeches but from all the conversations that spring up during the day and late into the evening. If you’re curious as to who will be there, here’s a page with the speakers. If you’re at the conference, look me up.

The Fed Funds Rate: R.I.P.
‒ The Third and Final Transformation of Monetary Policy
By Woody Brock, Ph.D.

Strategic Economic Decisions, Inc.
The policy announcements of the US Federal Reserve Board are dissected and analyzed more closely than any other global financial variable. Indeed, during the past thirty years, Fed‐Watching became a veritable industry, with all eyes on the funds rate. Within a few years, this term will rarely appear in print. For the Fed will now be targeting two new variables in place of the funds rate. One result is that forecasting Fed policy will be more demanding.

To make sense of this observation, a bit of history is in order. During the last nine years, US monetary policy has been transformed in three ways. To date, only the first two have been widely discussed and are now well understood. The third development is only now underway, and is not well understood at all. To review:

First, the Fed lowered its overnight Fed funds rate to essentially zero, not only during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008–2009, but throughout nearly six years of economic recovery thereafter. The average level of the funds rate at the current stage of recovery was about 4% during the past dozen business cycles. It was never 0% as it is in this cycle. In past essays, we have argued that this overutilization of “ultra‐easy monetary policy” reflected the failure of the government to utilize fiscal policy correctly (profitable infrastructure spending with a high jobs multiplier), and to introduce long‐overdue incentive structure reforms. It was thus left to monetary policy to pick up the pieces after the global crisis of 2008. This development was true in most other G-7 nations, not just in the US.

Second, the Fed inaugurated its policy of Quantitative Easing whereby it increased the size of its balance sheet five‐fold from $900 billion to $4,500 billion. Such an expansion would have been inconceivable to Fed watchers during the decades prior to the Global Financial Crisis. In the US, QE is now dormant, and the only remaining question (answered below) is how and when the Fed will shrink its bloated balance sheet back to more normal levels.

Third, the way in which the Fed conducts standard monetary policy (periodic changes in the funds rate) is currently undergoing a complete makeover. In particular, the traditional tool of changing the funds rate via Open Market operations carried out by the desk of the New York Fed no longer works. For as will be seen, the vast expansion of the size of its balance sheet (bank reserves in particular) has rendered traditional policy unworkable. From now on, therefore, the Fed will conduct monetary policy via two new tools that were not even on the drawing board of the Fed prior to 2008.

Summary: In this PROFILE, we explain in Part A why traditional (non‐QE) monetary policy has been vitiated by QE. In Parts B and C respectively, we discuss the two new tools that will be used in the future to conduct standard (non‐QE) monetary policy: what exactly are these tools, and how do they work? In Part D, we discuss why these new tools will not be required by the European Central Bank, which has a different institutional structure than the US Fed. Finally, in Part E, we turn to QE and discuss when and how the Fed will shrink its balance sheet back to a more traditional size in the years ahead.

In this write‐up, we largely rely on the remarks set forth in a recent paper by Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer, formerly chief economist of the IMF, Governor of the Central Bank of Israel, and professor of economics at MIT. We also benefitted from clarifications by Professor Benjamin Friedman at Harvard University.

Part A: So Long to Setting the Funds Rate via Open Market Operations

Prior to the financial crisis, bank reserve balances with the Fed averaged about $25 billion. With such a low level of reserves, a level controlled solely by the Fed, minor variations in the amount of reserves via Fed open market sales/purchases of securities sufficed to move the Fed funds rate up or down as desired. Analytically, the market for bank reserves (Fed funds) consisted of a demand curve for bank reserves reflecting the nation’s demand for loans, and a supply curve reflecting the supply of reserves by the Fed.

The so‐called Fed funds rate is the point of intersection of these two curves (the interest rate). If the Fed targeted, say a 2% funds rate, it achieved and maintained this rate by shifting the supply curve left or right by adding to/subtracting from the quantity of reserves. As the Fed was a true monopolist in the creation/extinction of reserves, it could always target and sustain any funds rate it chose.

These operations constituted “monetary policy” for many decades. But this is no longer the case, as was first made clear in a FOMC policy pronouncement of September 2014. To quote Dr. Fischer in his 2015 speech, “With the nearly $3 trillion in free bank reserves (up from pre‐crisis reserves averaging $25 billion), the traditional mechanism of adjustments in the quantity of reserve balances to achieve the desired level of the Federal funds rate may not be feasible or sufficiently predictable.” What new mechanisms will replace it? There are two.

Part B: The Use of Interest Rates Paid by the Fed on Free Bank Reserves

“Instead of the funds rate, we will use the rate of interest paid on excess reserves as our primary tool to move the Fed funds rate.” The ability of the Fed to pay banks an interest rate on their free reserves dates back to legislation of October 2008. This rate has been set at 0.25% during the past few years. (“Excess” or “free” bank reserves are defined as the arithmetic difference between total reserves and required reserves. Currently, as of March 30, required reserves were $142 billion, and total reserves were $2.79 trillion.)

The Logic: Whatever the level of the reserve interest rate that the Fed chooses, banks will have little if any incentives to lend to any private counterparty at a rate lower than the rate they can earn on their free reserve balances maintained at the Fed. The higher the reserve remuneration rate is, the greater will be the upward pressure on a whole range of short‐term rates.

Part C: The Use of the Reverse Repo Rate

“Because not all institutions have access to the excess reserves interest rate set by the Fed, we will also utilize an overnight reverse repurchase purchase agreement facility, as needed. In a reverse repo operation, eligible counterparties may invest funds with the Fed overnight at a given interest rate. The reverse repo counterparties include 106 money market funds, 22 broker‐dealers, 24 depository institutions, and 12 government‐sponsored enterprises, including several Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Farmer Mac.”

The Logic: Fischer continues: “This facility should encourage these institutions to be unwilling to lend to private counterparties in money markets at a rate below that offered on overnight reverse repos by the Fed. Indeed, testing to date suggests that reverse repo operations have generally been successful in establishing a soft floor for money market interest rates.”

Summary

Due to the explosion of the size of its balance sheet (bank reserves in particular), the Fed has been forced to abandon management of the Fed funds rate via traditional open market operations. This activity is now being replaced by two new policy tools, both of which are somewhat “softer” than the older tool. First, bank’s free reserves now earn an interest rate on excess bank reserves which is available to banks with access to the Fed’s reserve facility. Second, financial institutions such as money market funds lacking access to the reserve facility will be able to lodge funds overnight (not necessarily merely one night) at the Fed and receive the reverse repo rate offered by the Fed.

Part D: Irrelevance of these Developments to the European Central Bank

Interestingly, the European Central Bank does not need and will probably not implement the policy innovations now being implemented by the US Fed. The reason is that in Europe, lending is dominated by banks far more than here in the US. Moreover, most all European financial institutions can in effect deposit funds with the central bank. Finally, the ECB has long been able to vary the reserve remuneration (interest) rate that it pays for excess reserves. As a result, the ECB does not need to utilize the reverse repo rate tool that the Fed is introducing.

One final point should be made. Whereas Professor Fischer above asserts that the primary tool of the Fed will be variations in the reserve remuneration rate applicable to banks, other scholars believe it is the reverse repo rate that will be the primary tool of US monetary policy. This is partly because of the ongoing reduction of the role of banks in lending to private sector borrowers, a longstanding development that has accelerated with the new regulations imposed on banks since the Global Financial Crisis.

Part E: Will the Fed Shrink its Balance Sheet Back Down? If So, How?

Professor Fischer answers this point directly. Yes, the Fed will shrink its balance sheet, but not to the size of yesteryear. More specifically:

“With regard to balance sheet normalization, the FOMC has indicated that it does not anticipate outright sales of agency mortgage‐backed securities, and that it plans to normalize the size of the balance sheet primarily by ceasing reinvestment of principal payments on our existing securities holdings when the time comes... Cumulative repayments of principal on our existing securities holdings from now through the end of 2025 are projected to be $3.2 trillion. As a result, when the FOMC chooses to cease reinvestments of principal, the size of the balance sheet will naturally decline, with a corresponding reduction in reserve balances.”

Hopefully these remarks have helped clarify past and future changes in Fed policy—changes that amount to a thoroughgoing transformation of US monetary policy that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.
In the future, we suspect that the press will refer to the Fed’s targeting of the “reverse repo rate” in place of the Federal funds rate when analyzing prospective monetary policy.

San Diego, Raleigh, Atlanta, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont

I am excited about going to the 2015 Strategic Investment Conference on Tuesday. If for some reason you get there early on Wednesday, I intend to be in the gym at the hotel about 2:30, so come by and let’s work out together. Again, don’t forget to follow me on Twitter while I’m at the conference.

In the middle of May I go to Raleigh to speak for the Investment Institute and then on to Atlanta, where I’m on the board of Galectin Therapeutics. I’m going to New York the first week of June, then up to New Hampshire, where I will be speaking with a number of friends at a private retreat. I will then somehow get to Stowe, Vermont, to meet with my partners at Mauldin Economics. The rest of the summer looks pretty easy, with a few trips here and there.

Next week I intend to share my speech at the conference, or at least the gist of it. I have been thinking about it and working on it for some time. I had dinner this week with Mari Kooi, former fund manager who has become deeply imbedded with the Santa Fe Institute, an intellectual hotspot famous for its maverick scientists and interdisciplinary work on the science of complexity. Some of their people are working on something called complexity economics, which is an attempt to move on from the neoclassical view of general equilibrium.

If you wonder why the theories and models don’t work, it is because traditional economists are still busy trying to describe a vastly complex system by assuming away all the change except for that they believe they can control with the knobs they twist and pull. Their model of the economy resembles some vast Rube Goldberg machine where, if you put X money in here at Y rate, it will produce Z outcome over there.

Except that they don’t really know how the actions of the market will play out, since the market is made up of hundreds of millions of independent agents, all of whom change their behavior on the fly based on what the other agents are doing. Not to mention the effects of herding behavior and incentive structures and a dozen things beyond the ken or control of economists. There is only equilibrium in theory.

And that’s why it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict the future. The agents of change are multiplying and changing faster than we can keep up. But next week I will throw caution to the wind (unless I give up in despair), and we’ll see what my very cloudy crystal ball suggests lies in our future.

I am really looking forward to seeing old friends and making new ones at the conference. Have a great week.

Your trying to find simple in a complex world analyst,
John Mauldin



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Prove You’re Not a Terrorist

By Jeff Thomas

Recently, France decided to crack down on those people who make cash payments and withdrawals and who hold small bank accounts. The reason given was, not surprisingly, to “fight terrorism,” the handy catchall justification for any new restriction governments wish to impose on their citizens. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin stated at the time, “terrorism feeds on fraud, money laundering, and petty trafficking.”

And so, in future, people in France will not be allowed to make cash payments exceeding €1,000 (down from €3,000). Additionally, cash deposits and withdrawals totaling more than €10,000 per month will be reported to Tracfin—an anti-fraud and money laundering agency. Currency exchange will also be further restricted. Anyone changing over €1,000 to another currency (down from €8,000) will be required to show an identity card.

Do you need to make a deposit on a car? That might be suspect. Did you just deposit a dividend you received? It might be a payment from a terrorist organisation. Planning a holiday and need some cash? You might need to be investigated for terrorism. And France is not alone. In the US, federal law requires banks to file a “suspicious activity report” (SAR) on their customers whenever a customer requests a suspicious transaction. (In 2013, 1.6 million SAR’s were submitted.)

As to what may be deemed “suspicious,” it may be any transaction of $5,000 or more, but it may also mean a series of transactions that, together, exceed $5,000. The reader may be saying to himself, “But that’s just normal, everyday banking business—that means anybody, any time, could be reported.” If so, he would be correct. Essentially, any banking activity the reader conducts could be regarded as suspect.

In Italy, in 2011, Prime Minister Mario Monti began working to end the right of landlords, tradesmen, and small businesses to perform large transactions in cash, which critics say help them evade taxation. In December of that year, his government reduced the maximum allowed cash payment from €2,500 euros to €1,000.

Spain has outlawed cash transactions over €2,500. The justification? “To crack down on the black market and tax evaders.”

In Sweden, the country where the first banknote was created in 1661, the use of cash is being steadily eliminated. Increasingly, expenses are paid and purchases made by cellphone text message, and many banks have stopped handling cash altogether.

Denmark’s central bank, Nationalbanken, has another justification for ending its use of banknotes—producing paper money and coinage is not cost effective.

Israel also seeks to end the use of cash. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff has announced a three phase plan to “all but do away with cash transactions in Israel.”

Individuals and businesses would initially continue to be allowed to make small cash transactions, but eventually, all transactions would be converted to electronic forms of payment. The justification being used in Israel is that “cash is bad,” because it encourages an underground economy and enables tax evasion.

Across the Atlantic, banks and governments are on a similar campaign. A 2012 law in Mexico bans large cash transactions, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

In August 2014, Uruguay passed the Financial Inclusion Law, which limits cash transactions to US$5,000. In future, all transactions over that amount will be required to be performed electronically. The crying need for such a law? The stated reason was to improve the country’s credit ratings.

The Elimination of Paper Currency

In recent years, in commenting on the inevitability of currency collapse in those countries that are indebted beyond the possibility of repayment, I’ve made the prediction that governments and banks would jointly resort to the elimination of paper currency and replace it with an electronic one.

Some readers have understandably regarded the prediction as “alarmist.” After all, the idea is so farfetched—paper currency may be conceptually flawed, but it’s been around for a long time. But banks and governments seek total control of money, and this can only be achieved if they possess a monopoly on the flow of money.

If a worldwide system can be implemented in which currency transactions can only take place electronically through banking institutions, the banks will then have total power over the ability of a people to function economically. But why would any government allow the banks such dictatorial monetary control? The answer is that governments would then realise a long held, but heretofore impossible dream: to have access to a record of every monetary transaction that takes place for every single individual.

Governments have been both more proactive and bolder than I had anticipated and are simply imposing the restrictions worldwide under the justifications previously stated. As yet, there hasn’t been any backlash, and it may be that people worldwide may simply swallow the pill, not understanding what it means to their economic liberty.

If the public are not treating the new system as serious business, governments most assuredly are. Bankers on both sides of the Atlantic have forcibly become unpaid government spies. If they don’t comply, they can be fined and/or lose their banking charter. Directors can be imprisoned.

The US Justice Department already wants to take this overreach even further. Banks are now being asked to call the authorities whenever something “suspicious” occurs, presumably so that immediate action may be taken. What we are witnessing is the creation of totalitarian control of your finances. The implication that you may have some sort of terrorist involvement is a smokescreen.

As the above information attests, if for any reason you object to any of these measures, you have already been forewarned—you may be suspected of money laundering, tax evasion, or even terrorism. If you use cash for any reason—to pay your rent, to buy a used car, or (soon) to pay for your lunch—you may trigger an investigation. (The onus of proof that you are not guilty good will be on you.)

The take away from this discussion? Totalitarian control of currency is an inevitability, and it will take place sooner rather than later. The only question is whether the reader can retain some control of his wealth. Fortunately, wealth may still be held in land and precious metals, but these are only safe if they’re held outside a country that seeks totalitarian rule over its people. The ability to retain wealth still exists and, as always, internationalisation remains a key element to its continuation.

Editor’s Note: The ultimate way to diversify your savings internationally is to transfer it out of the immediate reach of your home government. And we've put together an in depth video presentation to help you do just that. It's called, "Internationalizing Your Assets."

Our all star panel of experts, with Doug Casey and Peter Schiff, provide low cost options for international diversification that anyone can implement - including how to safely set up foreign storage for your gold and silver bullion and how to move your savings abroad without triggering invasive reporting requirements. This is a must watch video for any investor and it's completely free.

Click here to watch Internationalizing Your Assets right now.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Doug Casey on ISIS, Gold, Crude Oil, and What to Expect in 2015

By Louis James, Chief Metals & Mining Investment Strategist

Today's feature is a special treat: a peek into the brain of one of the most successful speculators of all time. In what follows, Doug Casey talks to Louis James about what to expect in 2015. Doug weighs in on today's most important issues, including ISIS, oil, Putin, and the stock market. He even sticks his nose out to make a bold call on gold.

This (usually subscriber only) content originally appeared in The Casey Report.......Enjoy!

Louis James: It’s been a long, eventful quarter since we last spoke, Doug. What’s most on your mind as 2014 draws to a close and we look ahead to 2015?

Doug Casey: Let’s start with gold, since that’s the main focus we’ve had for so long. The Swiss gold reserve referendum just went down in flames, of course, and that was a big disappointment to many.

L: Really? I don’t know anyone who was surprised.

Doug: Well, surprise and disappointment aren’t the same thing. I’m constantly disappointed by how stupid people are, but I’m never surprised by it. There were early signs of support for the measure, but the powers that be mounted an immense propaganda campaign against it, and they succeeded. I hear that the balance sheet of the Swiss central bank has expanded faster than that of any other central bank in the world—

L: Whoa—that would explain a lot.

Doug: Yes. Relying on the Swiss franc to preserve your capital today is like relying on Swiss banks to preserve your privacy. Only fools would trust in either at this point. Despite that, Switzerland may still be sounder than any other country in Europe—which is really saying something about how bad things have gotten in Europe.

L: I’ve learned from you, Doug, not to pay too much attention to gold’s daily fluctuations, but I have to say that it was a singular day the Monday after the Swiss referendum failed. Gold dropped like a rock the moment it started trading, but quickly reversed and kept rising and rising all day long, making an $80/ounce swing from trough to peak. Did you notice that, and what do you make of it?

Doug: I suspect short covering; too many people were short because they expected the referendum to fail and then had to cover. Those inclined toward conspiracy theories may say that the initial retreat was “da boys” hitting the paper gold market with thousands of gold contracts in the middle of the New York night—timed perfectly to coincide with the Swiss vote. If there were any truth to that, the people promoting the notion would all be billionaires. But they’re not.

L: I understand your position that it could have been private players doing the same thing for profit, but let’s suppose for a moment that the government conspiracy is real. If so, the fact that gold buyers swamped the selling and pushed the price higher that day shows that the conspirators can at most influence gold, not control its price, and there’s hope in that.

Doug: I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories regarding gold price suppression. There’s zero credible evidence for it, and I’m embarrassed having to discuss the subject with outsiders who have heard it; for them it’s more evidence that gold investors all wear tinfoil hats. The fact is the government doesn’t care about gold; they really do think it’s a barbarous relic that should be used to plate urinals, as Lenin supposedly suggested. They don’t care about its price, and even less about that of silver. That said, I’ll stick my nose out and say that I think the bottom for gold has come and gone, with that spike downward.

L: I haven’t made a formal call, but my gut take is the same, and I said so in the current edition of the International Speculator. I published a chart showing one of those days—and there have been quite a few recently—in which gold sold off sharply during a time of light trading volume, only to rebound and close the day higher. To me, this is evidence that there’s a large pool of deep-pocketed buyers out there for whom the current gold trading range is attractive and who back up the truck for more every time it gets cheaper.

Doug: At least two of those buyers are the Chinese and the Russians. The Russians at least appear to disclose their gold holdings every month, and they keep rising and rising. China is less transparent, but they have become the world’s largest gold producer—and they not only don’t export any gold, they import more than anyone else, with the occasional exception of India.

This is important because at the end of the day, the paper market must eventually follow what’s happening in the real world of physical trade in a physical thing like gold. And the reality in the physical market for gold is that global demand is very strong. If any genius is actually suppressing the gold price in Western dominated paper markets, they are simply doing the Russians and Chinese a huge favor, helping them move gold from West to East cheaply. That’s all anyone really needs to know.

L: Understood. But of course, for many gold investors out there, it’s once bitten, twice shy.

Doug: There’s no question that gold has had a severe retracement since its high in September of 2011. I understand their feelings. But we’re not talking about feelings here; we’re talking about markets. Markets cycle. This one has cycled about as low as any gold market in past corrections, and now I think it’s time for it to cycle up again.

L: Now there’s a “forward-looking statement.”

Doug: It’s just my opinion. Everyone’s got one.

L: Heh—well, as Captain Kirk once said to Mr. Spock, “I trust your guesses more than I trust most people’s so-called facts.” But enough on that: what else are you seeing in the markets today?

Doug: The big retreat in oil prices is obviously important.

L: It’s certainly capturing a lot of headlines. What do you think: is this new US oil boom the beginning of the end for OPEC, as so many would love to believe?

Doug: OPEC works fine in a bull market, when everyone is a rich genius. But half the governments in OPEC are broke, they’re all run by morons, and they all cheat on quotas as suits them. OPEC is really just a public relations gimmick at this point—one that allows a bunch of corrupt ministers a chance to live high off the hog and feel important at their meetings.

But there’s no denying that there’s been a sea change in the global energy markets. Fracking and horizontal drilling have created a major surge in US oil production—a big deal in a fungible commodity that has impacted the whole world. The technology will spread everywhere, and costs will drop. But decline curves are steep. You probably need $70-$80 oil to make it work.

Meanwhile, countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Iran live off of oil revenue and will sell all they can produce at any price they can get. Besides, I think the world economy is slowing down—just look at Europe and China. All of this just means that the energy market went through an entirely predictable down cycle.

L: Any sense of where that bottom is?

Doug: Not a clear one, but we’re probably approaching it, if it hasn’t come and gone as well. Remember that most commodities move roughly together in cycles. Grains, metals, energy—a lot of commodities have fallen significantly in price. And the next step is down for the world economy. Way down.

L: That reminds me of what Rick Rule likes to say: the cure for low prices is low prices. People aren’t going to suddenly decide they don’t need metals, energy, or food. If high oil prices made expensive shale oil production profitable, lower prices will cut back on that supply, driving the price back up again, starting a new cycle.

Doug: Yes, though in the long run, oil supply will simply not be a problem. Oil is just a hydrocarbon, and all you need to make it is CO2, water, and energy. I really don’t worry about future supplies of energy. We’ll have to go through the wringer to get there, but things will eventually get better—not only better than most people imagine, but better than most can imagine.

L: So with that big picture in mind, do developments like the Russians canceling their South Stream pipeline idea in favor of a new route through Turkey matter?

Doug: Not really. The devil can be in the details, but these are just details. More important, as Marin points out in his new book, The Colder War, Putin is the smartest and toughest politician on the international scene today. Whether or not we like him isn’t relevant; we should expect his decisions to be intelligent, given his goals.

For example, as we’ve discussed before, from the Russian perspective, his actions helping Russian populations break their provinces away from Ukraine make perfect sense. The actions of the US-installed puppet government in Kiev are criminal and insane, trying to recapture those people who want independence in eastern Ukraine by force.

So even though he’s not a “nice guy,” I’m a Putin fan.

L: We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I fear the man wants to be Tsar of the World—and he may be ruthless enough to pull it off. And I don’t understand why you’re so quick to dismiss US/EU propaganda but buy into Russian propaganda. You haven’t been to Ukraine to determine the facts for yourself. Neither have I, but I have friends there, and I believe you’re misinformed. That said, I know that you’re basically in favor of all secession movements regardless of the particulars. You’d ultimately like to see every person on earth secede from any and all governments, and with that I agree.

Doug: I don’t think a visit would help. And just because the Russians say something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You simply have to support breakaway provinces, whether they’re in Spain, Italy, Ukraine, or wherever. It’s logical the Russians would try to help them secede and extremely provocative of the US government to arm the bankrupt regime in Kiev to prevent it.

L: Okay then—what else is on your mind?

Doug: The ISIS phenomenon in the Middle East. Everyone sees these people as the latest devil incarnate, but to me this turn of events is perfectly predictable—

L: It’s not just predictable, Doug: you did predict it. You’ve been saying for years—decades—that all these lines on the maps of Africa and the Middle East were drawn up in boardrooms in Europe with no regard for the historical, tribal, linguistic, religious, and economic groups they cut apart or the different and often mutually hostile peoples they forced together. I’ve heard you say many times that those lines would change, and now it’s happening.

Doug: Well, okay, that’s true. But the point is that as distasteful as these ISIS people may be to Western sensibilities, they speak for a large number of people who see the world their way, so it’s no surprise to see them gaining ground, cutting across borders they never believed in to begin with. What’s happening with ISIS is natural and inevitable.

The fact that they execute people by beheading is picturesque in a way many Westerners find offensive—but it is by nature no more offensive than state executions in the US. Strapping a guy to a chair and running electricity through him or strapping him to a table and injecting poisons into him is equally barbaric. The public executions are a distraction, however; the Saudis execute scores of people the same way for much the same reasons every year, and they’re supposed to be our bosom buddies.

What matters is that this movement has a great deal of support and it’s growing. It’s actually a good thing from the perspective of the people in that part of the world who want that kind of society. That means it will dig in and have staying power. I don’t think it’s going to dry up and blow away. I would not, however, rely on the media for an accurate description or interpretation of events.

And we should expect similar disintegrations of nonsense countries and reorganization of peoples into more natural groupings to spread across the Middle East and throughout Africa. You’d think some heads would roll, at least metaphorically, in Washington after the Iraqi Army—which was the recipient of scores of billions of wasted US taxpayer funds—collapsed totally. They fled and left their weapons for the insurgents. The neocons have absolutely no shame—which, incidentally, is a hallmark of a real sociopath. I’m much more afraid of the people in control of the US government than I am of ISIS.

L: What I don’t understand about this ISIS thing is that they seem to be setting up a “real” government—this new caliphate they want recognized—with defined and accepted territory. That makes them vulnerable to straightforward military action; they become a country that can be warred upon, not just a terrorist group that can disappear in the desert. So, if they are the Bad Guys, why don’t those governments that oppose them wage real war on them and wipe them out?

Doug: Well, what stupidity doesn’t explain, incompetence often does. None of the state armies in the Middle East is worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell; they’re nothing but vehicles for graft and oppressing the people. Half the soldiers are likely sympathetic with the jihadists, if only because they hate their corrupt officers. In warfare, Napoleon said, the psychological is to the physical as three is to one. So don’t bet against ISIS.

And don’t call them terrorists. The word has become a meaningless pejorative. I’m a freedom fighter, you’re a rebel, he’s a terrorist. Entirely apart from the fact that terrorism is just a tactic or sometimes a strategy, like artillery barrages or cavalry charges. We’ll see if they succeed in staking out a territory. Maybe they won’t bother; maybe they’ll become a phyle.

I suggest people analyze the situation in a value-free manner. If you involve your emotions, you’re unlikely to arrive at the most rational conclusions. ISIS is not a friend, but rest assured its members see themselves as good and just people who are fighting evil.

L: It occurs to me that ISIS may be more useful to the powers that be, beheading journalists on YouTube—a great distraction from the woes affecting people’s daily lives in the West.

Doug: Exactly. The worse the economy gets, the more governments look for someone else to blame or some danger somewhere that makes for a good distraction. There needs to be a dog to wag.
I suspect that there are a lot of neocons out there who wish they’d left Saddam alone, rather than whacking the hornet’s nest. Now that the cat is out of the bag, to mix metaphors, I think the phenomenon is really going to spread. And most neocons will learn absolutely nothing from it, since their views aren’t influenced by facts but set by a psychological aberration.

L: So the Forever War intensifies in 2015?

Doug: Yes. I think it’s inevitable. For a bunch of reasons.

L: Speaking of economic woes that people need to be distracted from, have you seen that there’s a national movement building steam in the US, advocating a $15 per hour minimum wage?

Doug: Yes. What these people don’t realize or want to face is that rote labor is not worth $15 per hour, and the only thing they will succeed in achieving is their own unemployment—and unemployability. This movement will only encourage companies like Amazon—which uses thousands and thousands of robots to do work people once did—to automate even more.

So maybe it’s a good thing; it will spur innovation and progress. It might even cost us less for those who lack value-adding skills to go on welfare than for business to be forced to pay them to do work machines can do better and faster. Let me hasten to add that welfare in all its aspects should be abolished. But that’s not going to happen until the present system actually collapses. Which, incidentally, will happen. Nothing overcomes the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

L: Perhaps it’s a form of poetic justice. People see that the government prints all the money it wants to bail out its friends on Wall Street—and itself—why not just print more for them directly? If governments can print, borrow, and spend an economy into prosperity, why indeed can’t societies print money for all to spend as they please? We can all be Zimbabwe—rejoice!

Doug: Looking at this from a historical point of view, you realize that 100 years ago, there were only five central banks in the world. Now every country in the world has a central bank, and they’re all doing exactly the same thing: creating currency units out of thin air as fast as they think they can get away with.

More broadly, a century ago, governments were very limited in their power to regulate the day-to-day lives of citizens. They were actually quite weak. The whole world has transformed tremendously since then, starting with the mega-disaster of World War I, and governments now have unprecedented power over people’s lives—made possible not only by laws, but by the power of central banks… and by the fact the average person has been programmed to believe that’s the way it ought to be.

The good news, I think, is that this situation has already crossed the point of no return; it’s unsustainable. It must and will fall apart. There’s going to be a gigantic reset within the next decade. Within 10 years, I’m sure we’re going to see something that’s going to be not just the biggest thing since World War II, but the biggest thing since the Industrial Revolution. I remain an optimist for the future, but the next big historical turning point is coming, and it’s going to be very unpleasant for most people.

L: That brings to mind how bad things have gotten already, with waves of protest wracking the US over excessive use of force by the police. I don’t know if Obama’s idea of putting cameras on cops will really help—does anyone really trust the watchers to watch themselves?

Doug: It’s all related. Look, rather than discuss the details of the day, I think that at heart, we should remember that cops are people, albeit people who generally have an extra Y chromosome and are loyal first to other cops. Their actions should not only be judged and responded to in the same way we would for any other people, but more severely. If, for example, a citizen kills someone, there’s a grand jury convened and a trial. The same should be the case for cops—every time and in all cases. In fact, cops should not be scrutinized less for the sake of expedience, but more—for the sakes of justice and freedom.

I think it’s unconscionable that cops have gotten away with shakedowns, murder, and other crimes for so long because of the mistaken belief—both theirs and among people in general—that the rules must be different for them. I’m not a fan of today’s cops in general; they’re no longer peace officers concerned with protecting the people, but law enforcement officers concerned with protecting themselves and strong-arming the people as directed by their masters. Maybe people are finally getting fed up. I don’t know how this will end, but it’s hard to see much change before things get worse—something like they were in the movie V for Vendetta.

L: So, pulling back to look at the big picture and looking ahead to 2015, it seems to me that there is something deeply and disturbingly wrong with the global picture. Everyone desperately focuses on whatever good news they can even as the bad news continues unabated. China, which now has the world’s largest economy, is failing to hit even its reduced GDP growth targets, and the EU has fallen and can’t get up. But no one wants to admit that the emperor has no clothes—it’s time to go holiday shopping.

Doug: Good point about China. I see an economic collapse as an almost sure thing for them; the collapse of iron ore prices in 2014 is clear evidence of this, with so much of global iron production having been gobbled up by China until recently. Their banks are broke, which will be a huge problem for the average Chinese worker, who still saves 25%-30% of his or her income. If those people can’t get their money out of their banks or if the money they get is worthless, there won’t just be riots and civil unrest, there will be a revolution.

Japan is destroying the yen and will wipe out the savings of the Japanese people. Europe is a socialist basket case at this point. And I have to say: the US isn’t far behind. Next year and 2016 are really going to be something to behold.

L: Grim. So… how to invest?

Doug: I have no desire to be in the mainstream stock market for the duration. Even less to be in the bond market—the bubble there has gotten bigger and bigger over the last few years, to the point that it has reached a truly unholy size. Real estate is holding on, but it’s floating on a sea of debt, so when the bond bubble breaks, real estate—certainly in the Anglo-Saxon world—is in for big trouble. (And real estate is the most obvious thing for cash-strapped local governments to tax, as things turn down.) So, as we’ve said before, I really don’t see any way out of this thing, other than through the wringer we’re now caught in. However long they last, I do think we’re in the last moments of calm before the storm breaks.

L: I see it as maybe a last chance to back up the truck on the best speculative picks in various sectors poised to surge whenever the storm does break. I don’t know when the balloon pops, but it’s growing and growing in a room full of pins, and our readers will want to be prepared when it blows. The best way I can think of is to subscribe to our various publications, both for strategic guidance and for potentially life-changing—or saving—stock picks.

Fortunately for those late to the game or who wish to diversify into new sectors, we're opening up subscription to our most exclusive and comprehensive service, Casey’s Club, through February 20. I do encourage everyone reading this conversation to take advantage of this opportunity, and prepare for what’s coming—perhaps faster than anyone imagines.

Doug: Yes. It will affect us all, everywhere, but I’m happy to be down here in the peaceful and productive wine country of Cafayate, Argentina.

L: I look forward to my next visit—and hope you’ll visit me soon here in Puerto Rico.

Doug: I’ll be interested to see what the actual change in your taxes turns out to be, net of all your costs.

L: Me too. Well, thanks for another very thought-provoking, if not exactly cheerful conversation. I don’t think I need to ask you to spell out the details of what to do as a result of your projections; it’s all here in these pages and in the International Speculator, of course.

Doug: Just so. Until next time, keep some powder dry; I think you’re going to see some spectacular buying opportunities, and I think those who stick with the program are going to achieve fantastic returns.

L: Hear, hear!



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!