Ukraine: Three Views

By John Mauldin

All eyes are on Ukraine as the drama continues to unfold. Today, for an early Outside the Box, I’m going to offer three sources on Ukraine. The first is a note that I got from the head of emerging market trading at one of the world’s largest hedge funds. This is what he sent out last week, ahead of any real action:

My view, Putin is stuck now, cannot easily de-escalate. Further escalation is a possibility, with Ukraine cracking along the obvious ethnic fault lines and the West reacting with measures such as sanctions and visa restrictions. Tit-for-tat follows; gas supplies to the EU are disrupted. Russian capital outflows accelerate and the RUB [ruble] quickly gets to 40/$, fuelling inflation and unnerving the Russian banking system, and also infecting the European banking system, in the manner that Chris Watling has envisaged. 

Meanwhile, the Chinese liabilities residing inside the European banking system are also in trouble, of course, and will continue to deteriorate. The CBR [Central Bank of Russia] hikes repeatedly with very little effect on slowing the RUB slide, further hurting GDP growth and economically sensitive segments of the market. The Russian RTX index revisits the GFC lows of 2008, Gazprom ADR's are already within shouting distance of their 2008 lows today. 

In such a scenario, there is an obvious risk of market contagion spreading throughout Eastern and Western Europe, and in fact the rest of the world. It is likely to resemble something on the order of the 1998 LTCM + RUB collapse + Asian financial crisis magnitude. In fact, a number of hedge funds will fail precisely because they have loaded up so heavily with European debt instruments which will unravel.

Meanwhile, politically, the U.S. ends up looking weaker and weaker, and getting less and less respect internationally. The U.S.-Russia confrontation is taking place under the critical gaze of the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Hizballah in Lebanon.

They are seeing the following:

1. President Obama is now seen backing off a commitment to U.S. allies for the second time in eight months. They remember his U-turn last August on U.S. military intervention for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons. They also see Washington shying off from Russia's clear and present use of military force and therefore concluding that Washington is not a reliable partner for safeguarding their national security.
   
2. The Middle East governments and groups which opted to cooperate recently with Vladimir Putin – Damascus, Tehran, Hizballah and Egypt – are ending up on the strong side of the regional equation. Others such as Turkey and Qatar are squirming.
   
3. American weakness on the global front has strengthened the Iranian-Syrian bloc and its ties with Hizballah. Assad is going nowhere.
   
4. Putin standing behind Iran is a serious obstacle to a negotiated and acceptable comprehensive agreement with Iran, just as the international EU- and U.S.-led bid for a political resolution of the Syrian conflict foundered last month, and now is unlikely to ever be revisited.
   

Notice what he said about European banks. Their exposure to emerging-market corporate debt, Chinese debt, and Russian liabilities is going to weaken their balance sheets just as the European central bank stress test will be kicking off.

This is going to be a very interesting period of time and potentially quite dangerous. Very few people saw U.S. market vulnerabilities in early 1998 coming from outside the US. As I said in my 2014 forecast, the United States should be all right until there is a shock to the system. We have to be aware of what can cause shocks. Ukraine in and of itself might not be enough, but notice that the Chinese are preparing to slow their economy down as part of the process of reducing their dependency on bank debt and foreign direct investment in construction and other projects. China has been one of the main engines of global growth, so a slowdown will have effects. It’s all connected, as I wrote in the 2007 letter we reprinted this weekend.

I should note that other very savvy investors and managers think there will be no contagion from current events. That’s what makes a market. It’s why we need to pay attention to Ukraine.

In the second part of today’s Outside the Box we visit a short essay on Ukraine by Anatole Kaletsky, which talks about timing investments during market crises:

Financial markets cannot afford to be so sentimental. While we should always recall at a time like this the famous advice from Nathan Rothschild to “buy at the sound of gunfire,” the drastically risk off response to weekend events in Ukraine makes perfect sense because Russia’s annexation of Crimea is the most dangerous geopolitical event of the post-Cold War era, and perhaps since the Cuban Missile crisis. It can result in only two possible outcomes, either of which will be damaging to European stability in the long-term.

Finally, I got a piece on Ukraine from my friend Ian Bremmer, who says, “[W]e are witnessing the most seismic geopolitical event since 9/11.” His analysis plus background data help us understand what is really going on in Ukraine.

Ian will be at my conference in San Diego, May 13-16, and you should be too. If you don’t have a plan for dealing with what happens when the midterm forecasts begin knocking on the door, you won’t know what to do when the time comes. Our conference offers a wonderful opportunity to bring your plans into focus and perhaps make a few new ones. You can find out more here.

I’m feeling a lot better today than I did this weekend. I am stuck in Miami due to the cancellation of my flight but hope to be able to get to Washington DC tomorrow morning to experience the East Coast version of the polar vortex. But, for the nonce, I guess I will be forced to sit outside at the pool or on the beach and continue my research, which is once again stacking up. You have to love iPads, which are for me great productivity enhancers. I did finish George Gilder’s brilliant must-read book Knowledge and Power this weekend, and I highly recommend it. And I suppose I should research the gym facilities here later this afternoon. I have mastered the trick of reading on my iPad while walking on the treadmill. No excuses. Have a great week.

Your enjoying the Miami weather analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

Realpolitik In Ukraine

By Anatole Kaletsky, Gavekal

Oscar Wilde described marriage as the triumph of imagination over intelligence and second marriage as the triumph of hope over experience. In finance and geopolitics, by contrast, experience must always prevail over hope and realism over wishful thinking. A grim case in point is the Russian incursion into Ukraine. What makes this confrontation so dangerous is that US and EU policy seems to be motivated entirely by hope and wishful thinking. Hope that Vladimir Putin will “see sense,” or at least be deterred by the threat of US and EU sanctions to Russia’s economic interests and the personal wealth of his oligarch friends. Wishful thinking about “democracy and freedom” overcoming dictatorship and military bullying.

Financial markets cannot afford to be so sentimental. While we should always recall at a time like this the famous advice from Nathan Rothschild to “buy at the sound of gunfire,” the drastically risk off response to weekend events in Ukraine makes perfect sense because Russia’s annexation of Crimea is the most dangerous geopolitical event of the post- Cold War era, and perhaps since the Cuban Missile crisis. It can result in only two possible outcomes, either of which will be damaging to European stability in the long term. Either Russia will quickly prevail and thereby win the right to redraw borders and exercise veto powers over the governments of its neighbouring countries. Or the Western-backed Ukrainian government will fight back and Europe’s second-largest country by area will descend into a Yugoslav-style civil war that will ultimately draw in Poland, NATO and therefore the US.

No other outcome is possible because it is literally inconceivable that Putin will ever withdraw from Crimea. To give up Crimea now would mean the end of Putin’s presidency, since the Russian public, not to mention the military and security apparatus, believe almost unanimously that Crimea still belongs to Russia, since it was only administratively transferred to Ukraine, almost by accident, in 1954. In fact, many Russians believe, rightly or wrongly, that most of Ukraine “belongs” to them. (The very name of the country in Russian means “at the border” and certainly not “beyond the border”). Under these circumstances, the idea that Putin would respond to Western diplomatic or economic sanctions, no matter how stringent, by giving up his newly gained territory is pure wishful thinking. Putin’s decision to back himself into this corner has been derided by the Western media as a strategic blunder but it is actually a textbook example of realpolitik. Putin has created a situation where the West’s only alternative to acquiescing in the Russian takeover of Crimea is all-out war.

And since a NATO military attack on Russian forces is even more inconceivable than Putin’s withdrawal, it seems that Russia has won this round of the confrontation. The only question now is whether the new Ukrainian government will accept the loss of Crimea quietly or try to retaliate against Russian speakers in Ukraine—offering Putin a pretext for invasion, and thereby precipitating an all-out civil war.

That is the key question investors must consider in deciding whether the Ukraine crisis is a Rothschild style buying opportunity, or a last chance to bail out of risk-assets before it is too late. The balance of probabilities in such situations is usually tilted towards a peaceful solution—in this case, Western acquiescence in the Russian annexation of Crimea and the creation of a new national unity government in Kiev acceptable to Putin. The trouble is that the alternative of a full-scale war, while far less probable, would have much greater impact—on the European and global economies, on energy prices and on the prices of equities and other risk- assets that are already quite highly valued. At present, therefore, it makes sense to stand back and prepare for either outcome by maintaining balanced portfolios of the kind recommended by Charles, with equal weightings of equities and very long-duration U.S. bonds.

Looking back through history at comparable episodes of severe geopolitical confrontation, investors have usually done well to wait for the confrontation to reach some kind of climax before putting on more risk. In the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the S&P 500 fell -6.5% between October 16, when the confrontation started, and October 23, the worst day of the crisis, when President Kennedy issued his nuclear ultimatum to Nikita Khrushchev. The market steadied then, but did not rebound in earnest until four days later, when it became clear that Khrushchev would back down; it went on to gain 30% in the next six months.

Similarly in the 1991 Gulf War, it was not until the bombing of Baghdad actually started and a quick US victory looked certain, that equities bounced back, gaining 25% by the summer. Thus investors did well to buy at the sound of gunfire, but lost nothing by waiting six months after Saddam Hussein’s initial invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990. Even in the worst-case scenario to which the invasion of Crimea has been compared over the weekend—the German annexation of Sudetenland in June 1938—Wall Street only rebounded in earnest, gaining 24% within one month, on September 29, 1938. That was the day before Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich, brandishing his infamous note from Hitler and declaring “peace in our time”. The ultimate triumph of hope over experience.

Special Eurasia Group Update – Ukraine

By Ian Bremmer, Eurasia Group

Dear John,
Russia is conducting direct military intervention in ukraine, following condemnation and threats of sanction/serious consequence from the united states and europe. we're witnessing the most seismic geopolitical events since 9/11.

A little background from the week. russian president vladimir putin provided safety to now ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. the Ukrainian government came together with broadly pro European sentiment...and with few if any representatives of other viewpoints. the west welcomed the developments and prepared to send an imf mission, which would lift the immediate economic challenge. And then, predictably...the russians changed the conversation.

The west – the us and europe – supported the Ukrainian opposition as soon as President Yanukovych fled the country. that also effectively breached the accord that had been signed by the european foreign ministers, opposition and President Yanukovych (a Russian special envoy attended but did not add his name). The immediate american perspective was to take the changed developments on the ground as a win. but a "win" was never on offer in Ukraine, where russian interests are dramatically, even exponentially, greater than those of the americans or europeans. for its part, the new Ukrainian government lost no time in antagonizing the russians – dissolving the Ukrainian special forces, declaring the former president a criminal, and removing russian as a second official language. the immediate russian response was military exercises and work to keep Crimea. president Vladimir Putin kept mum on any details.

Let's focus on crimea for a moment. it's majority ethnic russian, and ukrainians living there are overwhelmingly russian speaking (there's a significant minority population of muslim Crimean tatars, formerly forcibly resettled under Stalin – relevant from a humanitarian perspective, but they'll have no impact on the practical political outcome). Crimea is a firmly russian oriented territory. Crimea has a Russian military base (with a long term lease agreement) and strong, well organized Russian and cossack groups – which they've supplemented with significant numbers of additional troops, as well as military ships sent to the area. Russia has said they will respect ukrainian territorial integrity...and I'm sure they'll have an interpretation of their action which does precisely that. moscow will argue that the ouster of President Yanukovych was illegal, that he's calling for Russian assistance, that the new government wasn't legally formed, and that citizens of Crimea – governed by an illegal government – are requesting russia's help and protection. all of which is technically true. to be sure, there are plenty of things the russians have already done that involve a breach, including clear and surely provable, given sufficient investigation, direct Russian involvement in taking over the parliament and two airports in crimea. but that's not the issue. it's just that if you want to argue over the finer points, the west doesn't have much of a legal case here and couldn't enforce one if it did.

And the finer points aren't what we're going to be arguing about for some time. president obama's response was to strongly condemn reported russian moves, and to imply it was an invasion of sovereignty...promising unspecified consequences to Russia should they breach Ukrainian sovereignty. if that was meant to warn the russians, who have vastly greater stakes in Ukraine (and particularly crimea) than the americans and the europeans, it was a serious miscalculation, as Putin already controlled crimea, it was only a question of how quickly and clearly he wanted to formalize that fact. there's literally zero chance of american military response, with the pentagon quickly clarifying that it had no contingencies for dealing with moscow on the issue – that's surely not true, they have contingencies for everything. but secretary of defense Chuck Hagel just wanted to ensure nobody thought the president meant that all options were on the table. instead, we're seeing discussions of president Obama not attending the G-8 summit in Sochi and targeted sanctions against Russia.

Putin has since acted swiftly, requesting a vote from the Russian upper house to approve military intervention in Ukraine. it was approved, unanimously, within hours. It's a near certainty that the Russians now persist in direct intervention. the remaining related question is whether russian intervention is limited to Crimea – Putin's request included defense of Russia's military base in sevastopol (on the crimean peninsula) and to defend the rights of ethnic russians in Ukraine...which extends far beyond crimea. putin's words may have been intended to deter the west, or he may intend to go into eastern Ukraine, at least securing military assets there. Given that pro-russian demonstrations were hastily organized earlier in the day in three major southeast ukrainian cities, it seems possible the russians are intending a broader incursion. if that happens, we're in an extremely escalatory environment. if it doesn't, it's still possible (though very difficult) that the west could come in financially and stabilize the Keiv government.

Before we get into implications, it's worth taking a step back, as we've seen this before. in 2008, turmoil developed in Georgia under nationalist president mikheil saakashvili, a charismatic figure, fluent english speaker, and husband to a european (from the Netherlands). he made it very clear he wanted to join NATO and the european union (the latter being a pretty fantastic claim). the Russian government was doing its best to make Georgia's president miserable – cutting off energy and economic ties and directly supporting restive Russian speaking republics within Georgia. for his part, saakashvili delighted in directly antagonizing putin – showing up late for a kremlin meeting (while he was busy swimming), insulting him personally, etc.

Saakashvili was a favorite of the west, the us congress particularly feted him. the messages from the united states were positive, making it sound like America had his back. internally, there was a strong debate – vice president dick cheney led the calls to free himself from russia's grip as fast and as loudly as possible, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice thought Saakashvili unpredictable and dangerous, and wanted to urge him to back off (as did former secretary Colin Powell, who lent his view to the white house as well). The Cheney view prevailed, Georgian president already had a habit of hearing what he wanted to out of mixed messages, and he proceeded. on 8 august, the russian tanks rolled into georgia and then the united states was left with a conundrum –  what to do to defend America's "ally" Georgia.

As it turned out, nothing. national security advisor steve hadley chaired a private meeting with president bush and all relevant advisors, most of whom said the united states had to take action. bush was sympathetic. hadley stopped the meeting and asked if anyone was personally prepared to commit military forces to what would be direct confrontation with russia. he went around the room individually and asked if there was a commitment – which would be publicly required of the group afterwards (and uniformly) if they were to recommend that the president take action. there was not – not a single one. and then the meeting quickly moved to how to position diplomacy, since there wasn't any action to take.

That's precisely where we are on ukraine – but with much higher stakes (and with a united states in a generally weaker diplomatic position), since ukraine is more important economically and geopolitically (and to europe specifically on both).

The good news is that russia doesn't matter as much as it used to on the global stage. indeed, a big part of the problem is that Russia is a declining power, and the west's response on ukraine was to make the west's perception of that reality abundantly clear to Putin. which, in Putin's mind, required a decisive response. but this has the potential to undermine american relationships more broadly. to say the U.S. - Russia relationship is broken presently is an understatement – the upper house also voted to recall the russian ambassador to washington (america's ambassador to Moscow had just this past week ended his term – the decision was unrelated to the crisis).

what will be much more interesting is 1) the significance of the west's direct response; 2) whether the Russians will cause trouble on a broader array of fronts for the west; and 3) whether a strongly intentioned Russia can shift the geopolitical balance against the united states.
taking each of these in order.

1) The west's direct response. we won't see much, although there will certainly be some very significant finger pointing. president obama will cancel his trip to sochi for the upcoming G8 summit and it's possible that enough of the other leaders will join him that the meeting is cancelled. it's conceivable the G7 nations would vote to remove Russia from the club. the us would also suspend talks to improve commercial ties with the united states. it's possible we see an emergency united nations security council session to denounce the intervention – which the russians veto (very interesting to see if the Chinese join them, and who abstains...). hard to see significant european powers actually breaking relations with russia at this point, but an action-reaction cycle could spiral. also, nato will have to fashion some response, possibly by sending ships into the black sea. shots won't be fired, but markets will get fired up.

2) International complications from Russia. this will significantly complicate all areas of us-russian ties.
russia doesn't want an iranian nuclear weapon, but they'll be somewhat less cooperative with the americans and europeans around Iranian negotiations...possibly making them more likely to offer a "third way" down the road that undermines the american deal. on syria, an intransigent russia will become very intransigent, making it more difficult to implement the chemical weapons agreement and providing greater direct financial and military support for bashar assad's regime.

On energy issues, a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine would put in play the integrity of major pipelines. moscow and kyiv would share strong incentives to keep gas and oil flowing, but in the worst case we could see disruptions. Ukraine has gas reserves for a while, but then the situation could become dire. russia could divert some European bound gas through the nord stream line, but volume to Europe would drop. this is all in extremis, but out there.

3) Geopolitical shift. Russia will see its key opportunity as closing ranks more tightly with China. while we may see symbolic coordination from beijing, particularly if there's a security council vote (where the Chinese are reasonably likely to vote with the russians), the chinese are trying hard to maintain a balanced relationship with the united states...and accordingly won't directly support russian actions that could undermine that relationship. leaving aside China, Russia's ability to get other third party states on board with their Ukrainian engagement is largely limited to the "near abroad" – Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan –  which is not a group the west is particularly concerned with.

But it is, more broadly, a significant hit to american foreign policy credibility. coming only days after secretary of state kerry took strong exception to "asinine", "isolationist" views in congress that acted as if the united states was a "poor country," a direct admonition by the united states and its key allies is willfully and immediately ignored by the russian president. that will send a message of weakness and bring concerns about american commitment to allies around the world. G-zero indeed.


We'll be watching this very closely over coming days. I'm flying to Seoul for a conference on monday, where I'm meeting up with President George W. Bush. should prove interesting on Russia, no question. i'm back on Wednesday, but will be available by phone/email throughout, so feel free to get in touch.
yours truly,

Ian

Like Outside the Box?
 
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

The article Outside the Box: Ukraine: Three Views was originally published at Mauldin Economics.

Should You Invest in the Marijuana Boom?

By Dan Steinhart, Managing Editor, The Casey Report

I was planning to explore the investment landscape of the burgeoning marijuana industry today, but it looks like the party’s already over.


Appearing before the Maryland Legislature, Annapolis Police Chief Michael Pristoop testified that 37 people died in Colorado on the first day of legalization from overdosing on marijuana.

What a damn shame. With morbid stats like that, the government can’t possibly allow the legalization trend to proceed any further. People’s lives are at stake!

Except they’re not. Chief Pristoop got those stats from a tongue-in-cheek story in The Daily Currant, a satirical newspaper à la The Onion. He believed it to be legitimate, so he cited it during testimony. Despite the fact that exactly zero people in history have died from overdosing on marijuana.

As you surely know, Colorado and Washington recently became the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use, joining 18 other states that have legalized it for medical use only. Legalization is gaining steam across the US, and that’s unlikely to change—if only because, other than citing fake facts, opponents of legalization have no argument.

Opposition to legalizing marijuana is dwindling for the same reason that opposition to gay marriage is dwindling: there’s no intelligent reason to oppose either one. Unless, in the case of marijuana, you’re concerned with its potential to cause more car accidents. But if those are your standards, we should criminalize beer, cellphones, and makeup, too.

One thing’s for sure: the investment world is enamored with the idea of a brand new green industry. As an illustration of exactly how hot this infant sector has become, take a look at this screen shot of an email received by a senior Casey Researcher this week. It’s a news release from a mining company, announcing its intent to “diversify” into the legal marijuana business:

An interesting business decision. I’m not sure what synergies exist between mining and marijuana, nor do I have any particular insight into how Next Gen’s management plans to enter the green business. But I applaud its forward thinking.

Apparently, so does the market. Here’s how Next Gen’s share price reacted to the announcement:

It soared over 300%, transforming from a penny stock into a dime stock in one day. Again, Next Gen didn’t grow earnings, discover a new gold deposit, or accomplish anything tangible. It tripled its valuation simply by announcing its entry into the marijuana business. That’s what I call a scorching industry.

So, should you put some speculative money into the hottest cannabis stock? Let’s take a quick tour around the burgeoning industry to get a picture of its investment prospects, focusing on five factors…..

1) Profits Will Plummet

 

Had Al Capone been born in any other era, he would not have amassed a $100 million fortune. It was Prohibition that allowed him to earn extraordinary returns in the otherwise standard business of providing alcohol to people.

Likewise, legal purveyors aren’t going to earn anywhere near the spectacular returns that criminals enjoyed when marijuana was illegal. Drug distributors can become filthy rich because dealing drugs requires taking extraordinary risks. One misstep and you go to jail. Or worse, the rival Mexican cartel mows you down. That risk premium is why illegal drugs are so expensive, and why marijuana costs $300-400/oz in the US. But it won’t for long.

How can I be so sure? Because we already have a glimpse into the future. Uruguay legalized marijuana in December, and an ounce of the stuff costs $28 there, less than 10% of what it costs to obtain it the US.
It’s true that the Uruguayan government controls the marijuana industry tightly and set that $28/oz price. But the cost to produce marijuana there averages just $14/oz. So $28/oz is a reasonable guess as to where the price of marijuana would settle if the market were allowed to clear.

Going forward, profit margins won’t be nearly as fat as they were in the past.

2) The Government Will Be Heavily Involved

 

At least one guy will unquestionably make a killing from marijuana’s legalization. His initials are “U. S.,” and he wears a star-spangled hat.

We’re just two months into legalization, and taxes are already hefty. In Colorado, marijuana is subject to a 2.9% sales tax, plus a 10% tax on retail marijuana sales, plus a 15% excise tax based on the average wholesale price. Washington is no better—it plans to exact a 25% excise tax, plus an 8.75% sales tax.

All told, taxes in these early-adopting states will be in the neighborhood of 30%. And that’s before the feds get their cut (more on that momentarily). Further, taxes are the one exception to the rule, “What goes up must come down.” Someday, tokers might look back longingly at that 30%. After all, the average tax on a pack of cigarettes in the US is 42%.

Last, the marijuana industry isn’t going to be the Wild West. Colorado is working to control pretty much every aspect of the market, as evidenced by its 144-page marijuana Rule Book. You can be sure that other states will follow suit.

3) It’s Still Illegal

 

Though marijuana is now legal in two states, it’s still illegal under federal law. The Obama administration has said it won’t enforce marijuana prohibition in states that legalize it, as long as those states keep it under control. The federal government maintains the same position on medical marijuana, which, somewhat surprisingly, is also still illegal under federal law.

The feds are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. Two weeks ago, the Treasury Department issued new rules that open the door for banks to do business with legal and licensed marijuana dispensaries.
Of course, once the feds do get on board, they’ll want a piece of the action. So be ready for even higher taxes.

4) Unsavory First Movers

 

It’s an unfortunate fact that, because the industry was just decriminalized recently, those best positioned to jump quickly into the marijuana business are those who were already in the marijuana business. In other words: people who were classified as criminals just two months ago.

Not that they were necessarily doing anything wrong by growing and distributing marijuana before it was legal. I’m sure plenty of growers and sellers are good people trying to earn a buck, just like those who grow and sell any other crop.

But as with any emerging industry, the first movers will be those who already possess an intimate knowledge of said industry. And in the case of marijuana, that means people who were running illegal businesses. So if you invest in their companies, you’re entrusting your capital to someone who’s willing to break the law.

As an investor, that should give you pause. Tread carefully, and dial your skepticism up to maximum.

5) Weak Candidates

 

The investment options in this infant industry are, understandably, limited. We’re a ways off from being able to buy a bushel of hemp on the futures exchange. If you want to invest, you’ll have to go with one of a handful of public companies. And unfortunately, none of them looks compelling.

The six companies in the chart below are the purest plays in the marijuana space. Their performance in 2014 is the stuff of legends—the worst performer gained 243% in the last three months:

But dig into their businesses and you’ll soon find that their value comes from their scientific-sounding names, and not from actually making money.

First, the companies are tiny and only trade on the illiquid over-the-counter markets. Before the share price run-up, only one, CannaVEST, had a market cap above $60 million.

What’s worse, most of them don’t have any revenue. And the ones that do generate revenue spend much more than they earn. Not that this is surprising—hardly any business could become profitable in just two months, so we won’t hold that against them. The problem is their valuations: CannaVEST is worth a staggering $1.8 billion today, and most of the others are all in the hundred-million range.

Let’s put it this way: if an entrepreneur walked into the Shark Tank seeking a $1.8 billion valuation for a company that doesn’t make money, Mark Cuban would laugh him out of the room. Speculative money already took these stocks to the moon. By buying one now, your only hope of profiting is for a greater fool to come along and buy it from you at a higher price.

As I see it, because of sky-high valuations, the risks in this blossoming industry far outweigh the potential reward, at least for a retail investor. I’m sure there are some fantastic private deals out there, and if you’re willing to press the flesh and meet some marijuan-trepreneurs yourself, you could make money.

But for non-full-time investors, you’ll want to watch this trend unfold from the sidelines, waiting for either (1) the speculative bubble to pop, so you can pick up some shares for fractions of a penny; or (2) a leader to emerge and demonstrate it can turn a profit.

Here’s a tip, though: If you’re looking for an investment with potentially spectacular gains, I would like to point you to another drug, this one perfectly legal once it’s FDA approved. What I’m talking about is an impressive biotech startup my colleague Alex Daley, Casey’s chief technology investment strategist, has dug up.

The company is well on its way to launching a breakthrough Alzheimer’s treatment—which, if successful, is sure to be a game changer for the medical industry. Clinical trial results are due out in early March, and should they be positive, the stock could easily double on the news… so right now is a great time to get in. Find out more about the company and its revolutionary product in this report.

The article Should You Invest in the Marijuana Boom? was originally published here at Casey Research.

Weekly Futures Recap With Mike Seery - SP 500, Gold, Coffee, Sugar

We’ve asked our trading partner Michael Seery to give our readers a weekly recap of the Futures market. He has been Senior Analyst for close to 15 years and has extensive knowledge of all of the commodity and option markets.

SP 500 Futures
The S&P 500 in the March contract hit another all time record high trading higher by 2 points at 1855 rallying about 16 points in the last 2 trading days as investors are extremely bullish this market due to the fact of low interest rates and a weakening U.S dollar pushing commodity prices higher which also helped push up stock prices. The S&P 500 is trading above its 20 & 100 day moving average telling you that the trend is to the upside as this bull market continues in my opinion as Friday’s remain the most bullish day of the week in equities as investors continue to think that higher prices are ahead with the next major target at 1900 in the next possible couple of months as mergers and acquisitions are taking place with solid earnings across the board and nowhere else to go due to the fact of extremely low interest rates so look to continue to buy the S&P 500 in my opinion especially on dips.

Trend: Higher
Chart Structure: Solid

Gold Futures
Gold futures are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average basically settling unchanged for the trading week going out this Friday afternoon in New York down about $8 at 1,323 after prices hit 1,345 in Wednesday’s trade as the trend still continues to the upside. I think this is just a possible pause as prices have had a heckuva rally in the last 2 months and I have been recommending a long position in gold for quite some time while placing my stop below the 10 day low which currently stands around 1,315 which is only $8 away so that stop is very tight with a high probability of getting clipped at that price on Monday, however continue to focus on gold and silver to the upside and if you’re lucky enough to get some panic selling I would still be looking at buying as 2013 created the low in gold prices in my opinion.

Trend: Higher
Chart Structure: Excellent

Coffee Futures
This is an actual email that I received from a major coffee producer in Brazil that was sent to me late Thursday night..... “I have been following your comments and suggestions on barchart´s page and have found quite accurate. I live in Machado, state of Minas Gerais, the largest Arabica producing area in Brazil and the lack of rain mixed with unusual hot temperatures are quite scary. However, the worse is yet to come. Even if it the amount of rain gets back to normality by March and April, coffee trees are no longer capable to produce enough energy for the flowering season that must happen between October and November. Having said that, 2015´s crop could be a total disaster if on top of that frost decides to show up by late May".

Coffee could face some corrections but price has no other place to go but up as Brazil alone is consuming around 25 million bags per year. If we´re down to 50 million bags this year ( I like to be optimistic) that will be quite interesting to watch. I continue to recommend a long position either with a futures contract or some type of bull call option spread for the month of July as 2.00 a pound is the next level of resistance as prices closed right as new contract highs at 180.30 a pound in the May contract.

Trend: Higher
Chart Structure: Improving

Sugar Futures
Sugar futures finished lower this Friday afternoon closing around 17.66 a pound in the May contract but rallied about 65 points for the week all due to the drought worsening in central Brazil which is cutting crop estimates which is pushing prices right near 3 ½ month highs. Sugar futures have rallied from 15.00 a pound in late January to all the way above 18.00 in yesterday’s trade as this market remains bullish and I have been recommending a long position when the breakout occurred at 16.58 I would place my stop loss at the 10 day low of 16.00 if you are long. Sugar futures are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average; however the chart structure is very poor as volatility has entered in the last couple of weeks having wild trading sessions of 80 points or more so make sure you have a proper money management technique in place limiting your risk in case you are wrong but I do believe prices are headed higher.

Trend: Higher
Chart Structure: Poor

So this just isn't enough for you? Click here for more of Mike's calls on commodities this week



Here's our complete schedule for free trading webinars!
 

The Ty Cobb Approach to Retirement Investing

By Dennis Miller

When baseball fans talk about players from the early 1900s, Babe Ruth is normally the first person mentioned. He was a great home run hitter with 714 career home runs, a record that stood for almost 40 years. Only two men have surpassed it. Ruth struck out 1,330 times, a record that also stood for several decades.


Most people think of Ty Cobb as a gritty player who held the career stolen base record for many years. But let’s look a bit deeper. Ty Cobb broke into major league baseball in 1905 at the age of 19 and hit .240 his first season. For the next 23 seasons, he hit over .300.

Cobb holds a lifetime batting average of .367, a record that still stands today: 85 years and counting. His career strikeout total is 357. He averaged 14.9 strikeouts per season, striking out 3.1% of the time, a remarkably low average.

Young people love to swing for the fences and hit those huge gains. With retirement money, an occasional home run is nice; however, our overriding goal is to preserve capital and avoid catastrophic losses. Ty Cobb didn’t hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth, but he was a model of consistency.

Once you’ve built your nest egg, you’re not trying to run up the score; you’re trying to stay ahead.
Anyone who has tried to play catch-up with his portfolio can tell you there’s no such thing as a five run homer. Newsletters touting the chance to double or triple your money can grab our attention, but experienced investors realize that those gains are only possible if you’re willing to take on the commensurate risk.

Swinging for the fences with retirement money won’t get the job done. With money that must last forever, putting your emotions aside and focusing on safety and consistency is paramount.

Safety First

 

Have you ever watched a thin-ice rescue scene? A person standing with all of his weight on thin ice can easily fall through as all his weight is concentrated. The rescuer trying to reach this person normally lies flat across the ice, spreading out his weight.

The same approach works for today’s retirement investor. Step one is to spread risk through diversification among (and within) asset classes, selective investments, position limits, and real-time monitoring of your portfolio via stop losses. While we like the income, avoiding catastrophic losses is our mantra.

It’s also worthwhile to reassess just what “safe” means. We can’t count on inflation remaining at historical 2% levels. FDIC insured CDs and US Treasuries are now guaranteed money losers when you factor in inflation. (“FDIC insured” does not shield us from inflation.)

This brings us to the Step two in the Ty Cobb approach: inflation protection. Investing in long-term, fixed-income investments during times of high inflation can result in catastrophic losses, precisely what we need to avoid.

Step three: find investments with low interest-rate sensitivity. Ross Perot coined the phrase “giant sucking sound” to describe jobs leaving the US. That will pale in comparison to the giant sucking sound when interest rates start to rise and everyone tries to exit the market at once. The scene after Bernanke’s tapering remark was a small preview. Interest-rate-sensitive investments will be hit hard and fast.

The long-term bond market offers a good example of interest rate sensitivity. Take an A rated, ten year corporate bond paying 3.68%, for example. Now imagine you bought $10,000 worth; you’d receive $368 per year in interest until maturity. If, however, market interest rates rise during that time, you’d have to discount your selling price to resell that bond in the aftermarket to compensate for its below market interest rate.

“Duration” is the term for calculating that discount. The duration for this bond is 8.41. For every 1% rise in market interest rates, the resale value of your bond will drop 8.41%, or $841.00—more than two years’ accumulated interest. Should this happen, you’d have two lousy choices: You could hold on to the bond at a lower than current market value interest rate until it matures; or you could sell your bond for less than you paid for it.

If inflation is the reason interest rates are rising, that decreases your buying power even further, particularly if you choose to hold on to the bond.

While top quality bonds are considered safe, that safety stops at the borrower’s ability to repay you. It does not protect your investment from a reduced resale value in the aftermarket, nor does it protect you from inflation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me repeat myself: holding long term, low interest paying bonds at the wrong time can produce catastrophic results.

Interest-rate sensitivity isn’t limited to bonds. The stock market now has a similar problem. Many companies paying high dividends are so flooded with cash that they’ve become interest-rate sensitive. Utility stocks, for one, come to mind. When Bernanke said “taper,” the prices of utility stocks tumbled.

It is important to understand that this is a distinct type of risk. Should the market rise dramatically, stocks and bonds with high interest-rate sensitivity will be extremely vulnerable.

The final step in the Ty Cobb approach is finding a way to maintain your quality of life while managing your portfolio. While “set it and forget it” isn’t an option, no one wants to spend all of his or her time fretting about money. Finding ways to accomplish your investment goals and to sleep comfortably at night is what it’s all about.

So, to recap, your overriding objectives are to:

• avoid catastrophic losses;
• protect ourselves from inflation;
• minimize interest rate sensitivity; and
• free up time to enjoy life.

Your Investment Pyramid

 

Core holdings should make up the base your investment pyramid. Core holdings—precious metals, farmland, foreign currencies—are about survival. Hopefully you never have to touch them. No, I’m not suggesting that you prepare for the apocalypse, but we all need survival insurance. Mentally and practically, it should be separate from your active portfolio.

On the other hand, the investments recommended in the Money Forever portfolio are for income and profit. These investments are meant to keep you going for the rest of your life.

Here are the allocations you should use in today’s market. As conditions change, you may have to make adjustments, but we’ll help you do just that as events unfold.

The Ty Cobb approach uses three investment asset classes:

1. Equities providing growth and income and a high margin of safety;
2. Investments made for higher yield coupled with appropriate safety measures; and
3. Conservative, stable income vehicles.

50-20-30 Equals Bulletproof

 

You can balance yield and safety in today’s market. How safe is the Miller’s Money Forever approach? Bulletproof, in my opinion. And that comes from a former Marine who understands that bulletproof is doggone safe—but nuclear trumps all. There are some cataclysmic events that are effectively impossible for individual investors to predict or protect against. So, unless you’re the “build a nuclear bunker” type, our approach should let you sleep well at night and enjoy retirement with minimal financial stress.

We currently recommend holding 50% of your portfolio in solid, diversified stocks. These stocks should provide dividend income and growth through appreciation. Invest no more than 5% in any single pick, and use a 20% trailing stop loss. This way, the most you can lose on any single pick is 1% of your portfolio. Sometimes we recommend tightening our stop losses on specific stocks—we’ll notify you of those circumstances in a timely fashion.

If you follow the 5% rule, you should have no more than 10 stock positions in this 50% slice of your portfolio.

You might be wondering: Why not just invest in an S&P 500 fund? When the market swings, S&P 500 fund investors will be the first ones headed for the door, with the program traders that short the S&P chasing them out. We got our clue with the “taper caper,” and we want to mitigate that risk.

For the Money Forever portfolio, we searched for solid companies that are not so flooded with investor money that they’ve become interest-rate sensitive. Dealing with our picks individually allows us to limit our positions and set stop losses. We’re better off trading a little bit of yield for the safety of investing in solid companies that are less volatile than the market as a whole.

Catching a peek our Bulletproof portfolio is risk free if you try today. Access it now by subscribing to Miller's Money Forever, with a 90 day money back guarantee. If you don't like it, simply return the subscription within those first three months and we'll refund your payment, no questions asked. And the knowledge you gain in those months will be yours to keep forever.

The article The Ty Cobb Approach to Retirement Investing was originally published at Millers Money.

Get the complete Premier Trader University webinar schedule

This Might be our Most Important Post EVER!

This has been a big week around here. Our trading partner John Carter has been sharing some game changing videos that have culminated into his wildly popular webinars, "Being the Architect of the Big Trade".

If you haven't seen the videos or the webinar please do that asap after finishing reading this entire article.

Here is John's video from two weeks ago.

And Here is the Replay of John's Webinar, which will only be up until midnight Friday evening February 28th

John sent us this message this morning and I want you to read it, because it could be our most important post ever.

John Carter here......

This may be the most important email I’ve ever sent to you. (Print Now)

In 1984 I read a book about Arnold Schwarzenegger and ever since then he has been one of my idols. Arnold’s dream was to come to America to become rich and famous. He had no idea how he would do this.

Arnold said, “I was a 15 year old farm kid growing up in Austria when I was first inspired by a bodybuilding magazine with a picture of Reg Park on the cover from one of his Hercules movies. My life was never the same. Reg Park became my idol and I could not have picked a better hero to inspire me. Reg went from bodybuilding to the movies. He became a smart and successful businessman, and he was the first person who gave me a glimpse of what my life could someday become if I dreamed big and worked hard.”

The biggest thing he said that stuck with me is, “I read this magazine and there was the whole plan laid out. I had my blueprint to accomplish my dreams.”

When I was 18 and decided that I wanted to become a trader I knew I only needed to find a blueprint for success. Since then I’ve developed and implemented several blueprints for successful trading.

My most important blueprint is for building wealth

Every trader would love to start with a million dollar trading account, but this rarely happens. Today I trade a few seven figure accounts, but 25 years ago I funded my first account with $1,000 (equivalent to about $5,000 today). What I needed and I what I discovered was a blueprint for building wealth.

LAST CHANCE LINK

Did you know most trading strategies taught out there are designed for accounts larger than $25,000 yet they are taught to traders with a $5,000 account as if they will have the same edge as someone with a larger account? This is simply not true.

Most traders start with under $25,000 in their account and those accounts need to utilize specific strategies to build wealth.

How does a trader go about building wealth?

1) You have to start with a goal. I think a reasonable goal with the strategies I’m going to share is to double an account and do it in a year.

2) You need to develop the right money management and trading mindset

3) You have to control your risk through appropriate position sizing

4) You need to have a written trading plan with the strategies you’re going to use and when

5) You need to know where your targets are so you don’t leave money on the table

LAST CHANCE LINK

For the first (and last) time I’m going to share my exact blueprint for wealth building.

The blueprint will include:

1) Step by step, A and B happens you do C blueprint. There will be nothing left to interpretation.

2) How to manage your risk – when to go big, and when not to “piss away your chips.”

3) How to structure your wealth building trades so that even when they don’t work out you still make money

4) The 3 “how to crush it” strategies that were most profitable in 2013

5) Identify the exact levels when a stock will “rip the market makers heads off”

And much more…

My goal with this course is to leave with you the exact blueprint for building wealth like Reg Park gave to Arnold.

Here is what you'll get when you join the Ultimate Options Trading Blueprint and 3 day mentorship:

1) Access to the Saturday course and 3 full days of live trading, analysis, and follow up sessions

2) You Get to Keep Everything - All audio and video will be recorded and you will get the on demand links and DVD. You will be able to download all my notes, the action plan, and PDFs I share with you during the course.

3) Fast Answers to Your Relevant Questions Answered by Henry, Darrell, Brian, Jeff, and myself throughout the course.

4) Homework: Special Bonus - Beginners Guide to Option on demand link

5) Homework: Options 101 Class on demand link

6) How to prepare your mind for the class and success

LAST CHANCE LINK

Here are the answers to some of the biggest questions we've been getting:

Q: I’m new to options should I go to this class?

A: Every journey starts with a single step. As part of the class we have included a few homework assignments that will quickly get you up to speed. I can teach anyone options in 1 hour and that exactly what I do in your options 101 homework assignment.

Q: When is this class?

A: The strategies class will be held Saturday March 1st from 2:00PM – 6:00PM New York time or 1-5 central. The 3 day live trading mentorship is Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday March 4th, 6th, and 7th during market hours with a lunch break midday.

Q: Will the course be RECORDED?

A: YES. Every single second of the 4 day course will be recorded. You will have online access to the recording PLUS you will get a DVD of the entire course in the mail.

Q: I am in the live trading room and I’ve taken most of your other courses will I learn anything new in this course?

A: Yes this course will be chock full of brand-spanking-new, never-before-revealed strategies and setups. If you’re in the live trading room and participated in every course there may be a few things in the class that will overlap, for example, you will already know what a squeeze is. However, the overwhelming majority of this course is material I have never presented on before.

Q: Do I need to be there live to get the most out of the course?

A: No, the course will be recorded and you will get all the information regardless if you attend live or not. The strategies I will teach can be universally applied at any time. As I go through live trading examples, although you will not be able to follow along live, I will be describing in detail what I am looking for in these live trades so when you watch the recording you will have the exact blue print I used determine which trades I got into and why.

Q: What if I have a full time job and I can’t trade intraday?

A: All of the strategies will work on any time frame. This means if you can only do end of day trading you can use daily and weekly charts. I find that people who are able to watch the markets all day end up over trading which is a death sentence for your trading account.

Q: Is there a Members Discount?

A: For a limited time we are making this class available for everyone at the member price because this class is so crucial. After the class is over the price will be raised for non-members.

LAST CHANCE LINK

I believe this will be the best course I've ever done and I’m really excited about presenting this material to you and hearing about your success.

Good Trading,

John

Visit John Carters "Simpler Options and Trading"

World Money Analyst Update on Europe

By John Mauldin

For the last two weeks on Thursdays we have brought you special editions of Outside the Box featuring World Money Analyst Managing Editor Kevin Brekke’s interviews with WMA contributing editors. We heard from Ankur Shah on emerging markets and Alexei Medved on Russia, and this week we wrap up the series with a frank, hard-hitting interview with Dirk Steinhoff, who covers the European and Scandinavian markets for WMA.

Kevin and Dirk are both based in Switzerland, and so they lead off with a discussion of the recent Swiss referendum on immigration. Dirk’s interpretation of the vote, which imposes quotas on the number of foreigners allowed to enter the country, is that it has implications for the entire European Union:

[T]he Swiss people basically decided that they want to control immigration themselves and do not want to give up this control to the centralized administration in Brussels. I think that this is a clear signal to the Swiss government that the Swiss people don’t want to give up more sovereignty and that they would like to see more decentralization in the future.

Which leads Kevin and Dirk to take up the broader issues of the unresolved Eurozone debt crisis, unemployment mess, and the fate of the euro. With EU parliamentary elections coming up in May, there is change in the air! OK, let’s turn it over to Kevin and Dirk for the details.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Boxsubscribers@mauldineconomics.com

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

World Money Analyst Update on Europe

World Money Analyst: With me today is Dirk Steinhoff. Dirk is a contributing editor at World Money Analyst and covers the European and Scandinavian markets. Great to have you with us.

Dirk Steinhoff: Thank you very much for having me.

WMA: Seeing that you're in Zurich and I'm in Fribourg, let's start with a look at developments in our own backyard. The Swiss are known for their system of direct democracy via use of the referendum. The recent success of a referendum that will restrict immigration into Switzerland made global headlines. What’s your position on the immigration issue and the consequences of this vote?

Dirk: First of all, I should mention that I was born and raised in Berlin and moved with my family to Switzerland in 2007. One of the main reasons why I decided to leave Germany and come to Switzerland, next to the great Swiss landscape, was the strongly centralized development of the European Union, which reminds me painfully of the political system in the former DDR [communist East Germany].

European politicians live a life that is completely detached from those that don’t belong to this elitist political class. Their decisions are based on distorted experience and lobbyist influence and not on real life experience and independent judgment. The strong, centralized power of Brussels, in combination with the desire to regulate everything in life, increasingly limits personal freedom, limits the development of entrepreneurship (and therefore the creation of non-government-related workplaces), and eliminates local, regional, and national characteristics.

The state is much less dominant in Switzerland, mainly due to its federalist and decentralized political system, which limits the power of the federal government. Due to my own background and my own moral conviction, I personally believe that every human being should be able to live and work wherever he or she wants, as long as they are self-reliant, willing to integrate, and do not become a burden to the community they recently entered.

My interpretation of the referendum is that the Swiss people basically decided that they want to control immigration themselves and do not want to give up this control to the centralized administration in Brussels. I think that this is a clear signal to the Swiss government that the Swiss people don’t want to give up more sovereignty and that they would like to see more decentralization in the future.

It also interesting to note that most of the media in Europe (even Swiss media) were shocked by the outcome of the vote. In sharp contrast, other polls in various European countries actually show that most citizens would have voted similarly to the Swiss, and some by an even higher margin than the outcome of the Swiss vote. I think that in the long run more and more of the European people will ask for the Swiss model of democracy to be implemented in their home countries.

Although the rhetoric used by politicians in Europe might change to the negative in the short term, I do not think that the referendum will have a long-term negative effect on the relations between Switzerland and Brussels. I believe that Brussels has to come to terms with our form of democracy and has to respect our sovereignty, even if they might disagree with some of our decisions.

WMA: The immigration debate is not unique to Switzerland, of course, and is a divisive issue across Europe. This seems to be part of a trend where we've seen a rise in popularity of nationalist and anti-euro parties? What's your view?

Dirk: You are right. The severe criticism of Switzerland because of the outcome of the referendum has eclipsed the fact that many European countries face the same issue. People are not only unhappy with the immigration politics within the EU, they are becoming more EU skeptical in general.

The political parties critical of the European Union – like the UK independence party in Great Britain, the Finns Party (formerly the True Finns) in Finland, the Lega Nord in Italy, the FPÖ in Austria, the AfD in Germany, the French Front Nationale, the Golden Dawn in Greece, and the Party of Freedom in the Netherlands – are gaining popularity. Of course, the reasons for and the scope of their EU criticism vary a lot.

I think this trend can be summed up as follows: the people want to have a voice and be able to decide their own fate! Pretty much everybody in the EU is unhappy about one issue or another. The Southern European countries are unable to cope with the austerity measures, and on the other hand you have a large part of the German population that is simply unwilling to continue financing the complete EU.  I believe this trend will gain momentum, and it will bring some surprises in the elections to the European Parliament in May 2014.
Europe has so many different cultures that centralization just doesn’t work, because there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to most issues. The euro is a perfect example of this!

WMA: That's an important point on the euro. With the continued rise of anti-euro sentiment, what is your outlook for the currency? Will the euro survive?

Dirk: I don’t know. There are different scenarios that I can imagine for the euro: strong countries leaving the Eurozone, unwilling to pay for a bottomless pit of EU debt; weak countries leaving the Eurozone in order to be able to devalue their currencies and regain competiveness; or a split into a strong northern euro and a weaker southern euro. Or some combination of these. As you can see, there are many possibilities, and what we will see depends on economic and political developments in European countries over the next several years. In my view, something will happen and we won’t have the same euro in five years time that we have today.

WMA: The adoption of the common currency has limited how individual countries can respond to fiscal stresses. News about the euro debt crisis has been very quiet lately. What is the situation?

Dirk: As you say, there has hardly been any news recently regarding the troubles in the EU, which does not mean that the problems are solved. They are still bubbling under the surface. With the current papering-over and continuation of indebtedness, the need to address the problems, with their inherent negative consequences for most people, has been postponed. Because of that, most of the harsh protest has faded and turned away from the streets and is canalized into the euro-skeptic political parties. And when there have been noteworthy protests, such as last November in French Brittany, media coverage was excluded.
What has changed in the last year? Absolutely nothing fundamentally! So the euro crisis will at some point reappear with all its inevitable consequences.

WMA: You mention France, so let's continue down that path. The small and mid-sized Eurozone countries – Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece – are essentially bankrupt as measured by GDP and in receivership by Brussels. Today, there is growing speculation that France, too, is headed for trouble soon. What do you think?

Dirk: I totally agree! They have too much debt, a radical socialist government, and absurd, business-unfriendly regulation. I have several friends who are business owners in France, and they are all contemplating leaving the country and moving their businesses abroad.  The quantity of regulation they have to comply with simply cannot be handled by a normal business, and the labor laws are so strict that no business owner in their right mind wants to take on the risk of employing someone.

Taking into consideration the unhealthy debt levels they have, the unsustainable social programs they offer, and the complete lack of any growth impulses, I have to believe that the French are indeed headed for trouble soon. And, as the second largest economy in the EU, France matters. If France stumbles, the EU is at risk.

WMA: Drawing on your comments about strict labor laws, the unemployment numbers in many EU countries are mind-boggling. You discussed this situation in your recent article for World Money Analyst. Can you talk about this for a minute?

Dirk: As we have seen since 2008, the trillions in newly created fiat money have mainly fueled asset bubbles. However, the real economy has not profited from it, because this money has not been lent to private industry. We are still facing 30% lower money velocity than before 2008 and that means that more than 30% of credit in circulation has disappeared. This is also why the real economy is still going down the drain.

Most jobs have been created within the government or government related entities; and as we all know, these jobs are paid for by the taxpayers and are not a source of production. Therefore, I personally believe the situation in the labor market will further deteriorate, especially among the young generation, below 25; they are going to suffer the most. The current youth unemployment rates in Spain and Italy are just shocking: 58% and 42%, respectively. We are losing a whole generation, and we cannot predict how drastically the damage we are doing to them will play out in the future.

WMA: High and sustained rates of joblessness can lead to frustration and anger by the unemployed that turns to civil unrest and protests. We've seen riots in several EU countries, including France, Greece, and Bosnia. Is that also a real danger for the stronger European countries?

Dirk: Yes, this is a real danger. As soon as the deterioration of people's personal economic situations reaches a certain level they will be on the streets, and that includes the streets of the stronger countries. At the moment, most people still believe that all the debt and all the rescue programs come for free.

WMA: What does this all mean for the outlook for European stocks and bonds?

Dirk: That you have to watch closely what the European Central Bank and governments do. It’s a tricky situation – you don’t want to miss any upside rallies in equities and bonds induced by loose monetary policies. Yet, on the other hand you know the party could end at any time. Risk management is essential.  The day of reckoning can be postponed by governments and central banks much further – as we know from the US and Japan – than common sense would allow for.

WMA: In your opinion, what European countries have the best economic outlook?

Dirk: The countries that have been strong in the past, with competitive industries and with sound current-account and budget balances. Countries like Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. And Switzerland.

WMA: As you mentioned above, in May 2014 there will be the EU Parliament election. Will that change anything?

Dirk: The potential increase of parliamentarians that are critical of Europe I mentioned before could intensify tensions within the EU and complicate the functioning of the EU system. But I don’t expect a quick change.

WMA: We must talk about the un-loved Swiss franc. Since Switzerland began intervention in the currency markets to halt the rise of the franc against the euro, the mainstream consensus has it that the franc is doomed. But the performance of the franc against other currencies, in particular the US dollar, has been very strong. What's your take on the Swiss franc going forward?

Dirk: It’s hard to say. In a euro crisis I would expect the Swiss National Bank [the central bank] to remove the floor to the euro. In such a situation the power of the SNB to keep the floor would be simply too small, I think. There are also attempts in Switzerland to once again constitutionally back the Swiss franc by gold. We’ll have to see. The Swiss franc, to me, still belongs to the upper class of paper currencies.

WMA: Do you have any last thoughts for our readers?

Dirk: Globally, we have entered a time when substantial corrections of past misadventures are likely to occur. It’s not the end of the world, but it's worth being prepared.

WMA: I really appreciate your insights on the European markets. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today.

Dirk: The pleasure was mine.

Like Outside the Box?
 
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox. It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

The article Outside the Box: World Money Analyst Update on Europe was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Catch our replay of our wildly popular webinar "Being the Architect of the Big Trade"

Doug Casey: “There’s Going to be a Bubble in Gold Stocks”

By Doug Casey

The following video is an excerpt from "Upturn Millionaires—How to Play the Turning Tides in the Precious Metals Market." In it, natural resource legends Doug Casey and Rick Rule discuss the deeply undervalued junior mining sector and the rare opportunity for spectacular returns it offers investors right now.

Loading the player .......

Discover for yourself how to make life changing gains in the new bull run in junior mining stocks. They still trade at deep discounts, but not for much longer.


To learn more, watch the full "Upturn Millionaires" video here.




This may be your last time to catch the replay...."Being the Architect of the Big Trade"

Buffett’s annual letter: What you can learn from my real estate investments

By John Mauldin

It does not hurt to be reminded once in a while about what it means to be a “true investor,” and who better to remind us than Warren Buffett? Today’s Outside the Box comes to us from the pages of Fortune magazine (hat tip to my good friend Tom Romero of Capital Research Partners, who is a pretty fair investor in his own right).

Fortune seems to have had the inside scoop on Mr. Buffett’s pronouncements over the years. I still keep some old Fortune magazines with interviews of Mr. Buffett to remind myself about the basics. For whatever reason I was up at 5 o’clock this morning and began reading this piece, and it functioned just as well as coffee as a wake up call.

Warren starts off by telling us the stories of two relatively minor real estate investments he made, one in the ’80s and the other in the ’90s, but where he’s going is straight to the heart of some fundamental investing principles.

Most of us get all wrapped up, from time to time, in the daily or weekly movements of our investments; but Warren wants us to remember that “Games are won by players who focus on the playing field – not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard. If you can enjoy Saturdays and Sundays without looking at stock prices, give it a try on weekdays.”

Easier said than done; but he’s right, of course. Now, it’s certainly OK dwell at length on the macroeconomic big picture, right? I mean, that’s half my fun most days! No, says Warren,

Forming macro opinions or listening to the macro or market predictions of others is a waste of time. Indeed, it is dangerous because it may blur your vision of the facts that are truly important. (When I hear TV commentators glibly opine on what the market will do next, I am reminded of Mickey Mantle's scathing comment: “You don't know how easy this game is until you get into that broadcasting booth.”)

So Warren wants our feet planted squarely on the field of play; he doesn’t want us up in the stands or, heaven forbid, watching the game on TV. And forget reading some commentator’s analysis of yesterday’s game or his take on the rest of the season!

Well, OK. So if this is the last Outside the Box or Thoughts from the Frontline you ever read, at least I got you this far, right?

But read on, and be sure not to miss Warren’s very pithy (and timely!) quotation from the late Barton Biggs.
And let me point out that when Warren suggests a future portfolio of 90% S&P index funds, he is talking about very, very long-term portfolio design and not something that retirees who need income or have a shorter-term focus (less than multiple decades) should be thinking about.

And to be fair, Buffet’s process of choosing which investments to put into his portfolio would not allow him to end up with very many components of the S&P 500. So I don’t share his bias against active management, though I have to agree that most of what passes for active management is problematic. But there is a lot we need to remember and ponder in Buffett’s Benjamin Graham old-style value investing.

I have never met the man, but I would like to. I think we might have more in common than some readers would imagine. Including hamburgers.

Today I’m flying to Los Angeles, where I will speak tonight and tomorrow for my partners at Altegris Investments. I am particularly looking forward to spending time with Jack Rivkin. I always learn a lot. Then I get on a plane to fly all the way across the country to Miami. I will be speaking for my close friend Darrell Cain at his annual conference as well as spending time with Pat Cox, who is going to come over from the West Coast of Florida. I hope to get a good part of this weekend’s letter done on the flight.

Then it’s on to Washington DC for a series of meetings. George Gilder is flying down from Boston and has offered to introduce me to a few of his friends, and I will do the same for him. We will hopefully be sitting down for a video in which we’ll discuss some mutually interesting ideas, as well as share a dinner or two where we’ll talk about a variety of policies with a few people who are perhaps in positions to do something about them.

Packing for a week in a variety of different climates is always an interesting process. And keeping up with my reading and writing and gym time and, most importantly, friend time will make for a very busy next seven days. You make sure you enjoy yourself. Now let’s see what Warren has to tell us about investing.

Your thinking a lot about portfolio strategy lately analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

Buffett’s annual letter: What you can learn from my real estate investments

This story is from the March 17, 2014 issue of Fortune.
February 24, 2014: 5:00 AM ET

In an exclusive excerpt from his upcoming shareholder letter, Warren Buffett looks back at a pair of real estate purchases and the lessons they offer for equity investors.
By Warren Buffett

“Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike.”
–Benjamin Graham, The Intelligent Investor

It is fitting to have a Ben Graham quote open this essay because I owe so much of what I know about investing to him. I will talk more about Ben a bit later, and I will even sooner talk about common stocks. But let me first tell you about two small non-stock investments that I made long ago. Though neither changed my net worth by much, they are instructive.

This tale begins in Nebraska. From 1973 to 1981, the Midwest experienced an explosion in farm prices, caused by a widespread belief that runaway inflation was coming and fueled by the lending policies of small rural banks. Then the bubble burst, bringing price declines of 50% or more that devastated both leveraged farmers and their lenders. Five times as many Iowa and Nebraska banks failed in that bubble’s aftermath as in our recent Great Recession.

In 1986, I purchased a 400 acre farm, located 50 miles north of Omaha, from the FDIC. It cost me $280,000, considerably less than what a failed bank had lent against the farm a few years earlier. I knew nothing about operating a farm. But I have a son who loves farming, and I learned from him both how many bushels of corn and soybeans the farm would produce and what the operating expenses would be. From these estimates, I calculated the normalized return from the farm to then be about 10%. I also thought it was likely that productivity would improve over time and that crop prices would move higher as well. Both expectations proved out.

I needed no unusual knowledge or intelligence to conclude that the investment had no downside and potentially had substantial upside. There would, of course, be the occasional bad crop, and prices would sometimes disappoint. But so what? There would be some unusually good years as well, and I would never be under any pressure to sell the property. Now, 28 years later, the farm has tripled its earnings and is worth five times or more what I paid. I still know nothing about farming and recently made just my second visit to the farm.

In 1993, I made another small investment. Larry Silverstein, Salomon’s landlord when I was the company’s CEO, told me about a New York retail property adjacent to New York University that the Resolution Trust Corp. was selling. Again, a bubble had popped – this one involving commercial real estate – and the RTC had been created to dispose of the assets of failed savings institutions whose optimistic lending practices had fueled the folly.

Here, too, the analysis was simple. As had been the case with the farm, the unleveraged current yield from the property was about 10%. But the property had been undermanaged by the RTC, and its income would increase when several vacant stores were leased. Even more important, the largest tenant – who occupied around 20% of the project’s space – was paying rent of about $5 per foot, whereas other tenants averaged $70. The expiration of this bargain lease in nine years was certain to provide a major boost to earnings. The property’s location was also superb: NYU wasn’t going anywhere.

I joined a small group – including Larry and my friend Fred Rose – in purchasing the building. Fred was an experienced, high-grade real estate investor who, with his family, would manage the property. And manage it they did. As old leases expired, earnings tripled. Annual distributions now exceed 35% of our initial equity investment. Moreover, our original mortgage was refinanced in 1996 and again in 1999, moves that allowed several special distributions totaling more than 150% of what we had invested. I’ve yet to view the property.
Income from both the farm and the NYU real estate will probably increase in decades to come. Though the gains won’t be dramatic, the two investments will be solid and satisfactory holdings for my lifetime and, subsequently, for my children and grandchildren.

I tell these tales to illustrate certain fundamentals of investing:

•You don’t need to be an expert in order to achieve satisfactory investment returns. But if you aren’t, you must recognize your limitations and follow a course certain to work reasonably well. Keep things simple and don’t swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick “no.”

•Focus on the future productivity of the asset you are considering. If you don’t feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset’s future earnings, just forget it and move on. No one has the ability to evaluate every investment possibility. But omniscience isn’t necessary; you only need to understand the actions you undertake.

•If you instead focus on the prospective price change of a contemplated purchase, you are speculating. There is nothing improper about that. I know, however, that I am unable to speculate successfully, and I am skeptical of those who claim sustained success at doing so. Half of all coin-flippers will win their first toss; none of those winners has an expectation of profit if he continues to play the game. And the fact that a given asset has appreciated in the recent past is never a reason to buy it.

•With my two small investments, I thought only of what the properties would produce and cared not at all about their daily valuations. Games are won by players who focus on the playing field – not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard. If you can enjoy Saturdays and Sundays without looking at stock prices, give it a try on weekdays.

•Forming macro opinions or listening to the macro or market predictions of others is a waste of time. Indeed, it is dangerous because it may blur your vision of the facts that are truly important. (When I hear TV commentators glibly opine on what the market will do next, I am reminded of Mickey Mantle’s scathing comment: “You don’t know how easy this game is until you get into that broadcasting booth.”)

My two purchases were made in 1986 and 1993. What the economy, interest rates, or the stock market might do in the years immediately following – 1987 and 1994 – was of no importance to me in determining the success of those investments. I can’t remember what the headlines or pundits were saying at the time. Whatever the chatter, corn would keep growing in Nebraska and students would flock to NYU.
There is one major difference between my two small investments and an investment in stocks. Stocks provide you minute-to-minute valuations for your holdings, whereas I have yet to see a quotation for either my farm or the New York real estate.

It should be an enormous advantage for investors in stocks to have those wildly fluctuating valuations placed on their holdings – and for some investors, it is. After all, if a moody fellow with a farm bordering my property yelled out a price every day to me at which he would either buy my farm or sell me his – and those prices varied widely over short periods of time depending on his mental state – how in the world could I be other than benefited by his erratic behavior? If his daily shout-out was ridiculously low, and I had some spare cash, I would buy his farm. If the number he yelled was absurdly high, I could either sell to him or just go on farming.

Owners of stocks, however, too often let the capricious and irrational behavior of their fellow owners cause them to behave irrationally as well. Because there is so much chatter about markets, the economy, interest rates, price behavior of stocks, etc., some investors believe it is important to listen to pundits – and, worse yet, important to consider acting upon their comments.

Those people who can sit quietly for decades when they own a farm or apartment house too often become frenetic when they are exposed to a stream of stock quotations and accompanying commentators delivering an implied message of “Don’t just sit there – do something.” For these investors, liquidity is transformed from the unqualified benefit it should be to a curse.

A “flash crash” or some other extreme market fluctuation can’t hurt an investor any more than an erratic and mouthy neighbor can hurt my farm investment. Indeed, tumbling markets can be helpful to the true investor if he has cash available when prices get far out of line with values. A climate of fear is your friend when investing; a euphoric world is your enemy.

During the extraordinary financial panic that occurred late in 2008, I never gave a thought to selling my farm or New York real estate, even though a severe recession was clearly brewing. And if I had owned 100% of a solid business with good long-term prospects, it would have been foolish for me to even consider dumping it. So why would I have sold my stocks that were small participations in wonderful businesses? True, any one of them might eventually disappoint, but as a group they were certain to do well. Could anyone really believe the earth was going to swallow up the incredible productive assets and unlimited human ingenuity existing in America?

When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks – which we think of as small portions of businesses – our analysis is very similar to that which we use in buying entire businesses. We first have to decide whether we can sensibly estimate an earnings range for five years out or more. If the answer is yes, we will buy the stock (or business) if it sells at a reasonable price in relation to the bottom boundary of our estimate. If, however, we lack the ability to estimate future earnings – which is usually the case – we simply move on to other prospects. In the 54 years we have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decision.

It’s vital, however, that we recognize the perimeter of our “circle of competence” and stay well inside of it. Even then, we will make some mistakes, both with stocks and businesses. But they will not be the disasters that occur, for example, when a long-rising market induces purchases that are based on anticipated price behavior and a desire to be where the action is.

Most investors, of course, have not made the study of business prospects a priority in their lives. If wise, they will conclude that they do not know enough about specific businesses to predict their future earning power.
I have good news for these nonprofessionals: The typical investor doesn’t need this skill. In aggregate, American business has done wonderfully over time and will continue to do so (though, most assuredly, in unpredictable fits and starts). In the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial index advanced from 66 to 11,497, paying a rising stream of dividends to boot. The 21st century will witness further gains, almost certain to be substantial. The goal of the nonprofessional should not be to pick winners – neither he nor his “helpers” can do that – but should rather be to own a cross section of businesses that in aggregate are bound to do well. A low-cost S&P 500 index fund will achieve this goal.

That’s the “what” of investing for the nonprofessional. The “when” is also important. The main danger is that the timid or beginning investor will enter the market at a time of extreme exuberance and then become disillusioned when paper losses occur. (Remember the late Barton Biggs’s observation: “A bull market is like sex. It feels best just before it ends.”) The antidote to that kind of mistiming is for an investor to accumulate shares over a long period and never sell when the news is bad and stocks are well off their highs. Following those rules, the “know-nothing” investor who both diversifies and keeps his costs minimal is virtually certain to get satisfactory results. Indeed, the unsophisticated investor who is realistic about his shortcomings is likely to obtain better long-term results than the knowledgeable professional who is blind to even a single weakness.

If “investors” frenetically bought and sold farmland to one another, neither the yields nor the prices of their crops would be increased. The only consequence of such behavior would be decreases in the overall earnings realized by the farm-owning population because of the substantial costs it would incur as it sought advice and switched properties.

Nevertheless, both individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. The resulting frictional costs can be huge and, for investors in aggregate, devoid of benefit. So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm.

My money, I should add, is where my mouth is: What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit. (I have to use cash for individual bequests, because all of my Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) shares will be fully distributed to certain philanthropic organizations over the 10 years following the closing of my estate.) My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s. (VFINX)) I believe the trust’s long term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors – whether pension funds, institutions, or individuals – who employ high-fee managers.

And now back to Ben Graham. I learned most of the thoughts in this investment discussion from Ben’s book The Intelligent Investor, which I bought in 1949. My financial life changed with that purchase.

Before reading Ben’s book, I had wandered around the investing landscape, devouring everything written on the subject. Much of what I read fascinated me: I tried my hand at charting and at using market indicia to predict stock movements. I sat in brokerage offices watching the tape roll by, and I listened to commentators. All of this was fun, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that I wasn’t getting anywhere.

In contrast, Ben’s ideas were explained logically in elegant, easy-to-understand prose (without Greek letters or complicated formulas). For me, the key points were laid out in what later editions labeled Chapters 8 and 20. These points guide my investing decisions today.

A couple of interesting sidelights about the book: Later editions included a postscript describing an unnamed investment that was a bonanza for Ben. Ben made the purchase in 1948 when he was writing the first edition and – brace yourself – the mystery company was Geico. If Ben had not recognized the special qualities of Geico when it was still in its infancy, my future and Berkshire’s would have been far different.

The 1949 edition of the book also recommended a railroad stock that was then selling for $17 and earning about $10 per share. (One of the reasons I admired Ben was that he had the guts to use current examples, leaving himself open to sneers if he stumbled.) In part, that low valuation resulted from an accounting rule of the time that required the railroad to exclude from its reported earnings the substantial retained earnings of affiliates.

The recommended stock was Northern Pacific, and its most important affiliate was Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. These railroads are now important parts of BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe), which is today fully owned by Berkshire. When I read the book, Northern Pacific had a market value of about $40 million. Now its successor (having added a great many properties, to be sure) earns that amount every four days.

I can’t remember what I paid for that first copy of The Intelligent Investor. Whatever the cost, it would underscore the truth of Ben’s adage: Price is what you pay; value is what you get. Of all the investments I ever made, buying Ben’s book was the best (except for my purchase of two marriage licenses).

Warren Buffett is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. This essay is an edited excerpt from his annual letter to shareholders.

Like Outside the Box?
 
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.

It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

The article Outside the Box: Buffett’s annual letter: What you can learn from my real estate investments was originally published at Mauldin Economics.

Premier Trader University....Get their FREE Trading Webinar Schedule

Coffee - It's more then just Starbucks' Achilles' Heel

If you having been following us you know that coffee [ticker JO] has been one of our favorite trades for early 2014. Our trading partner Adam Hewison sent us this great post on coffee and it's effect on price action in Starbucks [SBUX].......

Today, I am going to be analyzing the relationship between Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ:SBUX) and its main raw commodity, coffee beans.

Let me start off by saying that I really like Starbucks and the coffee it sells. In fact, my favorite drink at Starbucks is a Venti Coffee Frappuccino with one third the ice, blended five times. Major Challenges

Starbucks faces a major challenge, one it cannot control - the price of its major commodity, coffee.

With one of the worst droughts in history hitting Brazil's coffee belt region, it is rapidly pushing prices higher. This is no ordinary drought as it is forcing more than 140 cities in Brazil to ration water. Reports in Brazilian newspapers indicate that some neighborhoods are receiving water only every three days. This is serious, as Brazil produces most of the world's coffee.

With Coffee (NYBOT:KC.H14.E) prices at 14 month highs, there is little to suggest that this trend is going to change any time soon. It would appear as though early predictions are indicating that coffee supplies could be 5 million bags lower than consumption for the 2014–2015 season.

The other side of the coin is that there are more and more people drinking coffee. We are seeing that in developing markets such as Brazil, India, and China where they are acquiring a taste for this delicious beverage.

I'm sure that Starbucks can put pressure on the growers and the wholesalers, but that will only go so far in savings. Eventually, they're going to have to take a hit on their bottom line because of the drought in Brazil and higher raw commodity prices.

When does the consumer eventually say that cup of coffee at Starbucks is just too expensive? Will consumers, instead of having one cup every day, cut back to maybe every other day?

A Tale Of Two Charts

In the two charts below, you'll see a broad yellow column highlighting the same time frames on each chart. It shows the high period in Starbucks and a low period in coffee prices.

What Does This Company Do?

Starbucks Corporation operates as a roaster, marketer, and retailer of specialty coffee worldwide. Its stores offer coffee and tea beverages, packaged roasted whole bean and ground coffees, single serve products, juices and bottled water.




Chart Legend & Technical Picture For Starbucks (Black Numbers)

1. All Trade Triangles are red and negative
2. Yellow column shows high in stock prices and inverse in coffee price
3. Downtrend firmly in place




Chart Legend & Technical Picture For Coffee (Black Numbers)

1. All Trade Triangles are green and positive
2. Yellow column shows low in coffee prices and inverse in stock price
3. Uptrend firmly in place

To summarize, I expect the current downtrend in Starbucks to continue unless there is a dramatic reversal in coffee prices or a reversal with the Trade Triangles.

If I am correct in my analysis and these two trends continue, Starbucks could move down to the following Fibonacci support levels:

38.2% @ $67.85
50% @ $63.31
61.8% @ $58.77

I hope you found this Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ:SBUX)/Coffee (NYBOT:KC.H14.E) comparison informative and helpful.

Adam Hewison
President, INO.com

Click here to get all of Adams blog post in your inbox



This weeks special....Get our FREE "Channel Trading Program"

Appetite for Distraction

By Grant Williams

It was during the siege of Fort Sumter that the story I want to share with you takes place….

This story came to me from the pen of Jared Dillian, the very talented writer of an excellent publication called The Daily Dirtnap; and the moment I read it I knew I had to share it with my readers, because it illustrates perfectly something I have been talking to people about for years.

Readers can, and definitely should check out Jared's fantastic work HERE; and to give you a taste of Jared's enviable narrative prowess, I am going to let him tell you the story as he told it to me:

The Calhoun Mansion

Let me tell you again why I like gold and silver.

I was in Charleston two weekends ago for my mom's birthday. We did a horse and carriage ride, a historical tour, around the city. I always thought those things were cheesy, but as it turns out, the horse and carriage tours are very highly regulated, the tour guides have to pass a series of knowledge exams and then take continuing education. I kid you not! Ours had been doing it for six years, and was good.

So as we went by the Calhoun Mansion on Meeting Street, the tour guide fella starts telling us about the house. It was built by a guy named George Walton Williams, who was the richest guy in town. This was back during the Civil War. It's a 24,000 square foot mansion with 14 foot ceilings. It's just monstrous. It cost $200,000 to build — back in the 1860s! So how did Mr. George Walton Williams make his money?

Well, as you probably know, Charleston is a port city, and during the War, the Union Navy blockaded the port and then bombarded the city for weeks and months, but during this time, there were these guys who were "blockade runners" who would sneak by the navy ships, bringing necessary supplies to the city, which was under siege. Blockade runners made a lot of money — five grand a trip sometimes — but you know who made even more money? George Walton Williams did.

He financed the blockade runners.

Williams was not the only one doing this, but he was the most successful, why? Because he insisted on being paid only in gold and silver. If you know your Civil War history you also know that there was a Confederate currency, and I don't know if Mr. Williams had a particular view on the Confederate dollar, but at the conclusion of the war, the Confederate dollar collapsed, and everyone was left holding the bag — except for George Walton Williams.

Williams became like a J.P. Morgan character in the city — Charleston was the center of Southern finance, and Williams singlehandedly bailed out the Broad Street banks. He also built a pretty cool house.

Sorry to interrupt; I know you were enjoying Jared's prose, but we're just about to get to the point of this story, so I want to make sure everybody is paying close attention.

This next paragraph contains the fundamental principle of investing in gold and silver, which so few people genuinely understand — despite the multitudes of commentators expending countless thousands of words.

Hit 'em between the eyes, Jared:

So these anti gold idiots are just that, idiots, or else they have the memory of a goldfish, because currencies come and currencies go, as sure as night follows day. It is the natural order of things. And as you can see, it's not about trading gold to get rich or getting long gold or buying one by two call spreads or getting fancy, it literally is about protecting yourself in the end. It's not like Williams got rich. He just stayed rich. Everyone else got poor.

It's not like Williams got rich. He just stayed rich. Everyone else got poor.

That's it. Right there.

Thanks, Jared, I'll take it from here.

Click here to continue reading this article from Things That Make You Go Hmmm… – a free weekly newsletter by Grant Williams, a highly respected financial expert and current portfolio and strategy advisor at Vulpes Investment Management in Singapore.

The article Things That Make You Go Hmmm: Appetite for Distraction was originally published here at Mauldin Economics

Don't Miss This Weeks Free Trading Webinar...."Making the "Big Trades"