Thursday, March 13, 2014

Hedge Fund Trader Seth Klarman: QE Stimulus Bubble Will Burst

Major hedge fund trader says the QE stimulus bubble will burst.... at some point

In his letter to investors, Seth Klarman noted that “most” investors are downplaying risk and this “never turns out well,” noting that most people are not prepared for anything bad to happen. “No one can know what the future holds, but any year in which the S&P 500 jumps 32% and the NASDAQ Composite 40% while corporate earnings barely increase should be cause for concern, not further exuberance,” Seth Klarman’s investor letter said. “It might not look like it now, but markets don’t exist simply to enrich people.”

Noting that stock markets have risk and are not guaranteed investments may seem like an obvious notation, but against today’s backdrop of never before witnessed manipulated markets Seth Klarman sagely notes “Someday, financial markets will again decline. Someday, rising stock and bond markets will no longer be government policy. Someday, QE will end and money won’t be free. Someday, corporate failure will be permitted. Someday, the economy will turn down again, and someday, somewhere, somehow, investors will lose money and once again come to favor capital preservation over speculation. Someday, interest rates will be higher, bond prices lower, and the prospective return from owning fixed-income instruments will again be roughly commensurate with the risk.”

When will this happen? “Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday,” he writes, then starts to consider what a collapse might look like. “When the markets reverse, everything investors thought they knew will be turned upside down and inside out. ‘Buy the dips’ will be replaced with ‘what was I thinking?’ Just when investors become convinced that it can’t get any worse, it will. They will be painfully reminded of why it’s always a good time to be risk-averse, and that the pain of investment loss is considerably more unpleasant than the pleasure from any gain. They will be reminded that it’s easier to buy than to sell, and that in bear markets, all to many investments turn into roach motels: ‘You can get in but you can’t get out.’ Correlations of otherwise uncorrelated investments will temporarily be extremely high. Investors in bear markets are always tested and retested. Anyone who is poorly positioned and ill prepared will find there’s a long way to fall. Few, if any, will escape unscathed.”

Seth Klarman’s focus on Fed


Seth Klarman then once again turned his sharp rhetorical knife to the academics that run the US Federal Reserve who seem to think that controlling free markets is a matter of communications policy.

“The Fed, in its ongoing attempt to tamp down market volatility as much as possible decided in 2013 that its real problem was communication,” Seth Klarman dryly wrote. “If only it could find a way to communicate to the financial markets the clarity and predictability of policy actions, it could be even more effective in its machinations. No longer would markets react abruptly to Fed pronouncements. Investors and markets would be tamed.” The Fed has been harshly criticized by professional traders for its lack of understanding of real world market mechanics.

This lack of understanding is a concern given that the Fed is taking the economy into uncharted territory with unprecedented stimulus. “As experienced traders who watch the markets and the Fed with considerable skepticism (and occasional amusement), we can assure you that the Fed’s itinerary is bound to be exceptional, each stop more exciting than the one before,” Seth Klarman wrote, sounding a common theme among professional market watchers. “Weather can suddenly turn foul, the navigation faulty, and the deckhands hard to understand. In short, the Fed captain and crew are proficient in theory but lack real world experience. This is an adventure into unexplored terrain, to parts unknown; the Fed has no map, because no one has ever been here before. Most such journeys end badly.”

While the mainstream media is loaded with flattering articles of the Fed’s brilliance in quantitative easing and its stimulus program, the real beneficiaries of such a policy are the largest banks. Here Seth Klarman notes they have placed the economy at great risk without achieving much reward. “Before 2009, the Fed had never bought a single mortgage bond in its nearly 100-year history,” Seth Klarman writes of the key component of the Fed’s policy that took risky assets off the bank’s balance sheets. “By 2013, the Fed was by far the largest holder of those bonds, holding over $4 trillion and counting. For that hefty sum, GDP was apparently raised as little as 25 basis points in the aggregate. In other words, the policy has been a near-total failure. Bernanke is left arguing that some action was better than none. QE in effect, had become Wall Street’s new ‘too big to fail’ policy.”

Seth Klarman: What do economists know?


There has been considerable discussion that the academic side of the economics profession has little clue how markets really work. Economic academics, who now make up the majority of the Fed governors, often look at the world from the standpoint of a game of chess, where one can explore different options and there is now a “right” or “wrong” approach to market manipulation.

“The 2013 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics was shared by three academics: two were proponents of the efficient market hypothesis and the third was a behavioral economist, who believes in market inefficiency,” Seth Klarman wrote. “We suppose that could be considered a hedged position for the awards committee, one that would never occur in the hard sciences such as physics and chemistry, where a prize shared among three with divergent views would be an embarrassing mistake or a bad joke. While a Nobel Prize might well be the culmination of a life’s work, shouldn’t the work accurately describe the real world?”

Another interesting insight on the topic was to come from David Rosenberg, Chief Economist and Strategist at GluskinSheff, who recently wondered “[A]m I the only one to find some humour, if not irony, in the fact that the three U.S. economists who won the Nobel Prize for Economics did so because they ‘laid the foundation for the current understanding of asset prices’ at the same time that these asset prices are being determined less today by market-determined forces but rather by the distorting effects of the unprecedented central bank manipulation?”

Seth Klarman: Fed Created Truman Show Style Faux Economy


Baupost Group, among the largest hedge funds in the world, returned $4 billion in assets to clients at the end of 2013 because it didn’t want to grow too quickly and dilute performance. Klarman’s fund, which in 2013 had a high of 50% of his portfolio in cash, up from 36% in 2012, posted 2013 returns in the mid-teens consistent with the fund’s nearly 22 year track record.

Seth Klarman on Baupost’s returns


Saying the fund “drew a line in the sand” when it decided to return roughly $4 billion to clients at year end, Seth Klarman reflected on the decision, saying he wanted to control the fund’s head count, noting “we could not allow the firm to grow without limit. We are wise enough to know a good thing when we see it, and cautious enough to want to cherish, protect and nurture it so that we might maintain its essential qualities for a very long time.” A 50% cash position for a hedge fund might be construed as an indication the fund has grown to the point it was having difficulty allocating all the capital in appropriate trades.

He noted the 2013 performance occurred “despite the drag of large, zero yielding cash balances throughout the year.” Klarman, author of Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor, said the performance resulted from “considerable progress in event driven and private situations, and at least some uplift from the strong equity rally. Distressed debt, public equities, structured products, and real estate led the gains.” Tail risk hedges, the only material area of loss in the portfolio, cost approximately 0.2% as the fund reduced exposure to distressed debt, structured products, and private investments while public equity exposure increased modestly.

Market bifurcation {the basis for being bullish on equities}


In 2013 Seth Klarman noted the market bifurcation, which he describes as “a momentum environment of market haves (which we avoid spending time on) and have-nots (which receive our undivided attention) – coupled with our energetic sourcing efforts and valued long-term relationships,” and he expressed optimism for the fund in 2014 amidst what might be a stock market subject to individual interpretation. “In the face of mixed economic data and at a critical inflection point in Federal Reserve policy, the stock market, heading into 2014, resembles a Rorschach test,” he wrote. “What investors see in the inkblots says considerably more about them than it does about the market.”

Seth Klarman noted that those “born bullish,” those who “never met a stock market they didn’t like” and those with “a consistently short memory,” might look to the positives and ignore the negatives. “Price-earnings ratios, while elevated, are not in the stratosphere,” he wrote, stating the bull case. “Deficits are shrinking at the federal and state levels. The consumer balance sheet is on the mend. U.S. housing is recovering, and in some markets, prices have surpassed the prior peak. The nation is on the road to energy independence. With bonds yielding so little, equities appear to be the only game in town. The Fed will continue to hold interest rates extremely low, leaving investors no choice but to buy stocks it doesn’t matter that the S&P has almost tripled from its spring 2009 lows, or that the Fed has begun to taper purchases and interest rates have spiked. Indeed, the stock rally on December’s taper announcement is, for this contingent, confirmation of the strength of this bull market. The picture is unmistakably favorable. QE has worked. If the economy or markets should backslide, the Fed undoubtedly stands ready to once again ride to the rescue. The Bernanke/Yellen put is intact. For now, there are no bubbles, either in sight or over the horizon.

Seth Klarman’s market analysis


Like many of the best market analysts, Seth Klarman looks at both sides of the issue, the bull and bear case, in depth. “If you’re more focused on downside than upside, if you’re more interested in return of capital than return on capital, if you have any sense of market history, then there’s more than enough to be concerned about,” he wrote. Citing a policy of near-zero short-term interest rates that continues to distort reality and will have long term consequences, he ominously noted “we can draw no legitimate conclusions about the Fed’s ability to end QE without severe consequences,” a thought pervasive among many top fund managers. “Fiscal stimulus, in the form of sizable deficits, has propped up the consumer, thereby inflating corporate revenues and earnings. But what is the right multiple to pay on juiced corporate earnings?”

As he outlined the bear case, he started to divulge his own analysis that “on almost any metric, the U.S. equity market is historically quite expensive. A skeptic would have to be blind not to see bubbles inflating in junk bond issuance, credit quality, and yields, not to mention the nosebleed stock market valuations of fashionable companies like Netflix, Inc. and Tesla Motors Inc.

As it turns out he was just warming up. “There is a growing gap between the financial markets and the real economy,” Seth Klarman wrote, noting that even as the Fed promised that interest rates would stay low, they did get out of control to some degree across the yield curve in 2013. “Medium and long­term bond funds got hammered in 2013. Meanwhile, corporate earnings sputtered to a mid-single digit gain last year even as stocks drove relentlessly higher, without even a 10% correction in the last two and a half years,” a concern among many professional traders.

When it comes to stock market speculation and jumping on the bull market happy talk, Seth Klarman notes it’s never hard to build a “coalition of willing” who are willing to climb on the bandwagon. “A flash mob of day traders, momentum investors, and the usual hot money crowd drove one of the best years in decades for U.S., Japanese, and European equities,” he wrote. “Even with the ranks of the unemployed and underemployed still bloated and the economy barely improved from a year ago, the S&P 500 , Dow Jones Industrial Average 2 Minute, and Russell 2000 regularly posted new record highs.”

Seth Klarman noted that whether you see today’s investment glass as half full or half empty depends on your age and personality type, as well as your “lifetime” of experiences. “Our assessment is that the Fed’s continuing stimulus and suppression of volatility has triggered a resurgence of speculative froth,” while citing numerous examples of overvalued internet stocks that defied value investing logic.

“In an ominous sign, a recent survey of U.S. investment newsletters by Investors Intelligence found the lowest proportion of bears since the ill-fated year of 1987,” he wrote. “A paucity of bears is one of the most reliable reverse indicators of market psychology. In the financial world, things are hunky dory; in the real world, not so much. Is the feel-good upward march of people’s 401(k)s, mutual fund balances, CNBC hype, and hedge fund bonuses eroding the objectivity of their assessments of the real world? We can say with some conviction that it almost always does. Frankly, wouldn’t it be easier if the Fed would just announce the proper level for the S&P, and spare us all the policy announcements and market gyrations?” he said in a somewhat hilarious moment that bears a degree of truth.

Seth Klarman on Europe


Seth Klarman still isn’t much of a bull in Europe, as we noted in a previous ValueWalk. “Europe isn’t fixed either, but you wouldn’t be able to tell that from investor sentiment,” he noted. “One sell-side analyst recently declared that ‘the recovery is here,’ a sharp reversal from his view in July 2012 that Greece had a 90% chance of leaving the Euro by the end of 2013. Greek government bond prices have nearly quintupled in price from the mid-2012 lows. Yet, despite six years of painful structural adjustments, Greece’s government debt-to-GDP ratio currently stands at 157%, up from 105% in 2008,” he said, noting a growing concern among fund managers regarding the government debt crisis getting out of hand.

Seth Klarman noted that Germany’s own government debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 81%, up from 65% in 2008, and said “That doesn’t look fixed to us.” The EU credit rating was recently reduced by S&P, he noted, while European unemployment remains stubbornly above 12%. “Not fixed,” he said. “Various other risks lurk on the periphery: bank deposits remain frozen in Cyprus, Catalonia seems to be forging ahead with an independence referendum in 2014, and social unrest continues to escalate in Ukraine and Turkey. And all this in a region that remains saddled with deep structural imbalances. As Angela Merkel recently noted, Europe has 7% of the world’s population, 25% of its output, and 50% of its social spending.” While he notes the problems in Europe, Seth Klarman did not rule out that opportunity might be found in the region.

Seth Klarman on Bitcoin


Seth Klarman also weighed in on Bitcoin, noting that “Only in a bull market could an online ‘currency’ dubbed bitcoin surge 100-fold in one year, as it did in 2013. Now most sell-side firms are rushing to provide research on this latest fad,” he also noted that while “bitcoin funds” are being formed, the fund is “happy to let pass us by, the thinking behind cryptocurrencies may contain a kernel of rationality. If paper currencies – dollars and yen – can be printed in essentially unlimited volumes, and just as with all currencies are only worth what recipients on any given day will exchange in goods or services, then what makes them any better than the “crypto” kind of money?”

Comparing the economy and the Federal Reserve’s management of it to the movie The Truman Show, where the lead character lived in a false, highly-orchestrated environment, Seth Klarman notes with insight, “Every Truman under Bernanke’s dome knows the environment is phony. But the zeitgeist is so damn pleasant, the days so resplendent, the mood so euphoric, the returns so irresistible, that no one wants it to end, and no one wants to exit the dome until they’re sure everyone else won’t stay on forever.” Then he quotes Jim Grant who recently noted on CNBC, the problem is that “the Fed can change how things look, it cannot change what things are.”

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.




Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"


Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Complete Breakdown of Financial Controls in US Government, Says Austin Fitts

Complete Breakdown of Financial Controls in US Government, Says Austin Fitts Former HUD Assistant Housing Secretary and investment advisor Catherine Austin Fitts reveals her thoughts on the ever rising debt ceiling… what Obamacare is really about (and that’s not socialized healthcare)…why over $4 trillion missing from federal programs may not be incompetence, but a covert strategy....how to protect yourself from the constant devaluation of the U.S. dollar.....and what exactly the Popsicle Index measures and why it matters.

Here are a few excerpts:

“I don’t see Obamacare as something designed to offer healthcare. … I think the question comes down to a bigger one, which is, are we going to create a society where one hundred percent of everything is digitized and under central control?”

“Who is the governance system, and why are they behaving the way they are behaving? What we see is literally a psychopathic effort and intensity—whether it is in the energy area, whether it is in the currency area, whether it is in the food area, whether it is in the healthcare area—to get 100% central control and to use digital means to do it, and the question is why?”

“Well, you have a complete breakdown of internal financial controls in the U.S. government.…..You had over $4 trillion of what is called undocumentable adjustments and to this day, [these agencies] have never, as required by law, produced audited financial statements.”

“In my experience, government is not incompetent at all.…..Gridlock is a cover story, incompetence is a cover story. There is a plan, you just can’t see what it is.”



Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"


Elliott Wave Theory - Keys to Investor Success

Elliott Wave Theory - Plenty of people will freely offer you advice on how to spend or invest your money. “Buy low and sell high,” they’ll tell you, “that’s really all there is to it!” And while there is a core truth to the statement, the real secret is in knowing how to spot the highs and lows, and thus, when to do your buying and selling. Sadly, that’s the part of the equation that most of the advice givers you’ll run across are content to leave you in the dark about.

The reality is that no matter how many times you are told differently, there is no ‘magic bullet.’ There is no plan, no series of steps you can follow that will, with absolute certainty, bring you wealth. If you happen across anyone who says otherwise, you can rely on the fact that he or she has an agenda, and that at least part of that agenda involves convincing you to open your wallet.

In the place of a surefire way to make profits, what is there? Where can you turn, and what kinds of things should you be looking for?

The answers to those questions aren’t as glamorous sounding as the promises made by those who just want to take your money, but they are much more effective. Things like careful, meticulous research. Market trend analysis. Paying close attention to extrinsic factors that could impact whatever industry you’re planning to invest in, and of course, Elliott wave theory. If you’ve never heard of the Elliott wave, you owe it to yourself to learn more about it.

Postulated by Ralph Nelson Elliott in the late 1930’s, it is essentially a psychological approach to investing that identifies specific stimuli that large groups tend to respond to in the same way. By identifying these stimuli, it then becomes possible to predict which direction the market will likely move, and as he outlined in his book “The Wave Principle,” market prices tend to unfold in specific patterns or ‘waves.’
The fact that many of the most successful Wall Street investors and portfolio managers use this type of trend analysis in their own decision making process should be compelling evidence that you should consider doing the same. No, it’s not perfect, and it is certainly not a guarantee, but it provides a strong framework of probability that, when combined with other research and analysis, can lead to consistently good decisions, and at the end of the day, that’s what investing is all about. Consistently good decision making.

We use Elliott Wave Theory in real time by looking at the larger patterns of the SP 500 index for example. We deploy Fibonacci math analysis to prior up and down legs in the markets to determine where we are in an Elliott Wave pattern.  This helps us decide if to be aggressive when the markets correct, go short the market, or to do nothing for example.  It also prevents us from making panic type decisions, whether that be in chasing a hot stock too higher or selling something too low before a reversal.  We also can use Elliott Wave Theory to help us determine when to be aggressive in selling or buying, on either side of a trade.

For many, its not practical to employ Elliott Wave analysis with individual stocks and trading, but it can be done with experience.  We instead use a combination of big picture views like weekly charts, Wave patterns within those weekly views, and then zoom in to shorter term technical to determine ultimate timing for entry and exit.  This type of big picture view coupled with micro analysis of the charts gives us more clarity and better results.

One of our favorite patterns for example is the “ABC” pattern.  Partially taken from Elliott Wave Theory, we mix in a few of our own ingredients to help with timing entries and exits.  This is where you have an initial massive rally or the “A” wave pattern. Say a stock like TSLA goes from $30 to $180 per share, which it did.  The B wave is what you wait for and using Fibonacci analysis and Elliott Wave Theory we can calculate a good entry point on the B wave correction.  TSLA dropped from $180 to about $ 120, retracing roughly 38% (Fibonacci retracement) of the rally $30 to $180.  The B wave bottomed out as everyone was negative on the stock and sentiment was bearish. That is when you get long for the “C” wave.  The C wave is when the stock regains momentum, good news starts to unfold, and sentiment turns bullish.  We can often calculate the B wave as it relates often to the A wave amplitude.  Example is the TSLA “A” wave was 150 points, so the C wave will be about the same or more.

When TSLA recently ran up to about $270 per share, we were in uber bullish “C” wave mode, and we had run up $150 (Same as the A wave) from $120 to $270.  That is when you know it’s a good time to start peeling off shares. Often though, the C wave will be 150-161% of the  A wave, so TSLA may not have completed it’s run just yet.

Elliott Wave Theory

Knowing when to enter and exit a position whether your time frame is short, intermediate, or longer… can often be identified with good Elliott Wave Theory practices.  Your results and your portfolio will appreciate it, just look at our ATP track record from April 1 2013 to March 3rd 2014 inclusive of all closed out swing positions.  We incorporated Elliott Wave Theory into our stock picking starting last April and you can see the results:

ATP Elliott Wave Trading



Join Us Today And Start Making Real Money Trading - Click Here


Sincerely,

Chris Vermeulen
Founder of Technical Traders Ltd. - Partnership Program


Monday, March 10, 2014

Which Month is the Best for Buying Gold?

By Jeff Clark, Senior Precious Metals Analyst

Many investors, especially those new to precious metals, don't know that gold is seasonal. For a variety of reasons, notably including the wedding season in India, the price of gold fluctuates in fairly consistent ways over the course of the year.


This pattern is borne out by decades of data, and hence has obvious implications for gold investors. Can you guess which is the best month for buying gold?

When I first entertained this question, I guessed June, thinking it would be a summer month when the price would be at its weakest. Finding I was wrong, I immediately guessed July. Wrong again, I was sure it would be August. Nope.

Cutting to the chase, here are gold’s average monthly gain and loss figures, based on almost 40 years of data:


Since 1975—the first year gold ownership in the U.S. was made legal again—March has been, on average, the worst performing month for gold. This, of course, makes March the best month for buying gold.

But: averages across such long time frames can mask all sorts of variations in the overall pattern. For instance, the price of gold behaves differently in bull markets, bear markets, flat markets… and manias.
So I took a look at the monthly averages during each of those market conditions. Here’s what I found.


Key point:

The only month gold has been down in every market condition is March.

Combined with the fact that gold soared 10.2% the first two months of this year, the odds favor a pullback this month.

And as above, that can be a very good thing. Here’s what buying in March has meant to past investors. We measured how well gold performed by December in each period if you bought during the weak month of March.


Only the bear market from 1981 to 2000 provided a negligible (but still positive) return by year’s end for investors who bought in March. All other periods put gold holders nicely in the black by New Year’s Eve.
If you’re currently bullish on precious metals, you might want to consider what the data say gold bought this month will be worth by year’s end.

Regardless of whether gold follows the monthly trend in March, the point is to buy during the next downdraft, whenever it occurs, for maximum profit. And keep your eye on the big picture: gold’s fundamentals signal the price has a long climb yet ahead.

Everyone should own gold bullion as a hedge against inflation and other economic maladjustments… and gold stocks for speculation and leveraged gains. The greatest gains, of course, come from the most volatile stocks on earth, the junior mining sector.

Following our recent Upturn Millionaires video event with eight top resource experts and investment pros, my colleague Louis James released his 10-Bagger List for 2014—a timely special report on the nine stocks most likely to gain 1,000% or more this year. Click here to find out more.

The article Gold Is Seasonal: When Is the Best Month to Buy? was originally published at Casey Research.



Check out more "Gold and Crude Oil Trading Ideas"


The Problem with Keynesianism

By John Mauldin


“The belief that wealth subsists not in ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines but in identifiable and static things that can be seized and redistributed is the materialist superstition. It stultified the works of Marx and other prophets of violence and envy. It frustrates every socialist revolutionary who imagines that by seizing the so-called means of production he can capture the crucial capital of an economy. It is the undoing of nearly every conglomerateur who believes he can safely enter new industries by buying rather than by learning them. It confounds every bureaucrat who imagines he can buy the fruits of research and development.

“The cost of capturing technology is mastery of the knowledge embodied in the underlying science. The means of entrepreneurs’ production are not land, labor, or capital but minds and hearts….

“Whatever the inequality of incomes, it is dwarfed by the inequality of contributions to human advancement. As the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote, ‘Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances that permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of society, the people slip back into abject poverty. This is known as bad luck.’

“President Obama unconsciously confirmed Heinlein’s sardonic view of human nature in a campaign speech in Iowa: ‘We had reversed the recession, avoided depression, got the economy moving again, but over the last six months we’ve had a run of bad luck.’ All progress comes from the creative minority. Even government financed research and development, outside the results oriented military, is mostly wasted. Only the contributions of mind, will, and morality are enduring. The most important question for the future of America is how we treat our entrepreneurs. If our government continues to smear, harass, overtax, and oppressively regulate them, we will be dismayed by how swiftly the engines of American prosperity deteriorate. We will be amazed at how quickly American wealth flees to other countries....

“Those most acutely threatened by the abuse of American entrepreneurs are the poor. If the rich are stultified by socialism and crony capitalism, the lower economic classes will suffer the most as the horizons of opportunity close. High tax rates and oppressive regulations do not keep anyone from being rich. They prevent poor people from becoming rich. High tax rates do not redistribute incomes or wealth; they redistribute taxpayers – out of productive investment into overseas tax havens and out of offices and factories into beach resorts and municipal bonds. But if the 1 percent and the 0.1 percent are respected and allowed to risk their wealth – and new rebels are allowed to rise up and challenge them – America will continue to be the land where the last regularly become the first by serving others.”

– George Gilder, Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

– John Maynard Keynes

“Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview – nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.”

– Stephen Jay Gould

I think Lord Keynes himself would appreciate the irony that he has become the defunct economist under whose influence the academic and bureaucratic classes now toil, slaves to what has become as much a religious belief system as it is an economic theory. Men and women who display an appropriate amount of skepticism on all manner of other topics indiscriminately funnel a wide assortment of facts and data through the filter of Keynesianism without ever questioning its basic assumptions. And then some of them go on to prescribe government policies that have profound effects upon the citizens of their nations.

And when those policies create the conditions that engender the income inequality they so righteously oppose, they prescribe more of the same bad medicine. Like 18th-century physicians applying leeches to their patients, they take comfort in the fact that all right-minded and economic scientists and philosophers concur with their recommended treatments.

This week, let’s look at the problems with Keynesianism and examine its impact on income inequality.
But first, let me note that Gary Shilling has agreed to come to our Strategic Investment Conference this May 13-16 in San Diego, joining a star-studded lineup of speakers who have already committed. This is really going to be the best conference ever, and you need to figure out how to make it. Early registration pricing goes away at the end of this week. My team at Mauldin Economics has produced a short, fun introductory clip featuring some of the speakers; so enjoy the video, check out the rest of our lineup, and then sign up to join us.

This is the first year we have not had to limit our conference to accredited investors; nor are we limiting attendance from outside the United States. We have a new venue that will allow us to adequately grow the conference over time. But we will not change the format of what many people call the best investment and economic conference in the U.S. Hope to see you there. And now on to our letter.

Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences. We started a series two weeks ago on income inequality, the current cause célèbre in economic and political circles. What spurred me to undertake this series was a recent paper from two economists (one from the St. Louis Federal Reserve) who are utterly remarkable in their ability to combine more bad economic ideas and research techniques into one paper than anyone else in recent memory.

Their even more remarkable conclusion is that income inequality was the cause of the Great Recession and subsequent lackluster growth. “Redistributive tax policy” is suggested approvingly. If direct redistribution is not politically possible, then other methods should be tried, the authors say. I’m sure that, given more time and data, the researchers could have used their methodology to ascribe the rise in teenage acne to income inequality as well.

So what is this notorious document? It’s “Inequality, the Great Recession, and Slow Recovery,” by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari. One could ask whether this is not just one more bad economic paper among many. If so, why should we waste our time on it?

(Let me state for the record that I am sure Messieurs Cynamon and Fazzari are wonderful husbands and fathers, their children love them, and their pets are happy when they come home. In addition, they are probably outstanding citizens who are active in all sorts of good things in their communities. Their friends and colleagues enjoy convivial gatherings with them. I’m sure that if I were to sit down to dinner with them [not likely to happen after this letter], we would have a lively debate and hugely enjoy ourselves. This is not a personal attack. I simply mean to eviscerate as best I can the rather malignant ideas that they are proffering.)
That income inequality stifles growth is not simply the idea of two economists in St. Louis. It is a widely held view that pervades almost the entire academic economics establishment. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has been pushing such an idea for some time (along with Paul Krugman, et al.); and a recent IMF paper suggests that slow growth is a direct result of income inequality, simply dismissing any so called “right wing” ideas that call into question the authors’ logic or methodology.

The challenge is that the subject of income inequality has now permeated the national dialogue not just in the United States but throughout the developed world. It will shape the coming political contests in the United States. How we describe income inequality and determine its proximate causes will define the boundaries of future economic and social policy. In discussing multiple problems with the Cynamon-Fazzari paper, we have the opportunity to think about how we should actually address income inequality. And hopefully we’ll steer away from simplistic answers that conveniently mesh with our political biases.

I should note that my readers have sent me an overwhelming amount of research on income inequality that I’ve been wading through for the past week. Some of it is quite discomforting, and a great deal is politically incorrect, at least some of which is almost certain to offend my gentle readers. Who knew that income inequality is not due to the greedy rich but to marriage patterns or the size of households or any number of interesting correlated factors? The research will all be thought provoking, and we’ll will cover it in depth next week; but today let’s stay focused on the ideas of defunct economists.

Why Is Economic Theory Important?

Some readers may say, this is all well and good, but it’s just economic theory. How does that matter to our investment portfolios? The direct answer is that economic theory drives the policies of central banks and determines the price of money, and the price of money is fundamental to the prices of all our assets. What central banks do can be either helpful or harmful. Their actions can dampen volatility in the short term while intensifying pressures that distort prices, forming bubbles – which always end in significant reversals, often quite precipitously. (Note that it is not always high asset values that tumble. It is just as possible for central banks to repress the value of some assets to such low levels that they become a coiled spring.)

As we outlined at length in Code Red, central banks have a very limited set of policy tools with which to address crises. While the tools have all sorts of unlikely names, they are essentially limited to manipulating interest rates (the price of money) and flooding the market with liquidity. (Yes, I know that they can impose changes in a few secondary regulatory issues like margins, reserves, etc., but these are not their primary functions.)

The central banks of the US and England are beginning to wind down their extraordinary monetary policies. But whenever the next recession or crisis hits in the US, England, or Europe, their reaction to the problem – and subsequent monetary policy – are going to be based on Keynesian theory. The central bankers will give us more of the same, but it will be in an environment of already low rates and more than adequate liquidity. You need to understand how the theory they’re working from will express itself in the economy and affect your investment portfolio.

I should point out, however, that central banks are not the primary cause of distorted economic policy. They are reacting to the fiscal policies and political realities of their various countries. Japan’s government ran up the largest government debt-to-equity ratio in modern times; and now, as a result, the Japanese Central Bank is forced to monetize that debt.

Leverage and the distorted price of money have been at the root of almost every bubble in the postwar world. It is tempting to veer off into a soliloquy on the history of the problems leverage creates, but let’s forbear for now and deal with Keynesian thinking about income inequality.

The Problem with Keynesianism

Let’s start with a classic definition of Keynesianism from Wikipedia, so that we can all be comfortable that I’m not coloring the definition with my own bias (and, yes, I admit I have a bias). (Emphasis mine.)

Keynesian economics (or Keynesianism) is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy; instead, it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment, and inflation.

The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, during the Great Depression. Keynes contrasted his approach to the aggregate supply focused “classical” economics that preceded his book. The interpretations of Keynes that followed are contentious, and several schools of economic thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.

(Before I launch into a critique of Keynesianism, let me point out that I find much to admire in the thinking of John Maynard Keynes. He was a great economist and taught us a great deal. Further, and this is important, my critique is simplistic. A proper examination of the problems with Keynesianism would require a lengthy paper or a book. We are just skimming along the surface and don’t have time for a deep dive.)

Central banks around the world and much of academia have been totally captured by Keynesian thinking. In the current avant-garde world of neo-Keynesianism, consumer demand –consumption – is everything. Federal Reserve monetary policy is clearly driven by the desire to stimulate demand through lower interest rates and easy money.

And Keynesian economists (of all stripes) want fiscal policy (essentially, the budgets of governments) to increase consumer demand. If the consumer can’t do it, the reasoning goes, then the government should step in and fill the breach. This of course requires deficit spending and the borrowing of money (including from your local central bank).

Essentially, when a central bank lowers interest rates, it is trying to make it easier for banks to lend money to businesses and for consumers to borrow money to spend. Economists like to see the government commit to fiscal stimulus at the same time, as well. They point to the numerous recessions that have ended after fiscal stimulus and lower rates were applied. They see the ending of recessions as proof that Keynesian doctrine works.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. First, using leverage (borrowed money) to stimulate spending today must by definition lower consumption in the future. Debt is future consumption denied or future consumption brought forward. Keynesian economists would argue that if you bring just enough future consumption into the present to stimulate positive growth, then that present “good” is worth the future drag on consumption, as long as there is still positive growth. Leverage just evens out the ups and downs. There is a certain logic to this, of course, which is why it is such a widespread belief.

Keynes argued, however, that money borrowed to alleviate recession should be repaid when growth resumes. My reading of Keynes does not suggest that he believed in the continual fiscal stimulus encouraged by his disciples and by the cohort that are called neo Keynesians.

Secondly, as has been well documented by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, there comes a point at which too much leverage on both private and government debt becomes destructive. There is no exact number or way of knowing when that point will be reached. It arrives when lenders, typically in the private sector, decide that the borrowers (whether private or government) might have some difficulty in paying back the debt and therefore begin to ask for more interest to compensate them for their risks. An overleveraged economy can’t afford the increase in interest rates, and economic contraction ensues. Sometimes the contraction is severe, and sometimes it can be absorbed. When it is accompanied by the popping of an economic bubble, it is particularly disastrous and can take a decade or longer to work itself out, as the developed world is finding out now.

Every major “economic miracle” since the end of World War II has been a result of leverage. Often this leverage has been accompanied by stimulative fiscal and monetary policies. Every single “miracle” has ended in tears, with the exception of the current recent runaway expansion in China, which is now being called into question. (And this is why so many eyes in the investment world are laser focused on China. Forget about a hard landing or a recession, a simple slowdown in China has profound effects on the rest of the world.)

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts from the Frontline is a free weekly economic e-letter by best selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting Mauldin Economics.



Sunday, March 9, 2014

Weekly Futures Recap With Mike Seery

The U.S dollar sold off slightly this week finishing at 79.70 hitting a 12 week low looking to retest the contract lows which were hit 4 months ago around 79.40 as I’m recommending a short position in the U.S Dollar Index placing my stop above the 10 day high which currently stands at 80.60 risking around $800 per contract as the trend now has turned bearish in my opinion. The commodity markets certainly like the fact that the U.S dollar is headed lower as well as the bond market rallying sending interest rates to new recent lows as it reminds me of 2006 all over again when stocks and commodities moved higher as the U.S equity market hit all time highs in the S&P 500.

Remember when you trade you want to try to keep it simple and this trade is extremely simple by recommending selling one futures contract and continuing to place your stop at the 10 day low as I do think contract lows will be breached next week as the Euro currency finished up over 100 points in the last 2 days to close above 1.3870 also hitting new recent highs with 1.40 next resistance point.
TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Get our Gold, Crude Oil & Index ETF Trading Analysis Newsletter

The bond market finished lower for the 3rd straight trading session on Friday especially the five-year notes finishing down 12 ticks to close at 119 – 06 in the June contract having one of its weakest 3 days in over 2 months as the unemployment number came in at 175,000 which was construed as extremely bullish the economy sending bond yields higher. I have been advising a short position in the five year note for several months and I still believe if you’re a longer term investor and not necessarily a trader who gets in and out these are terrific selling opportunities as next month’s unemployment number in my opinion will improve and I think this is just an up day that you should be taking advantage of to get short.

The five year note is trading below its 20 & 100 day moving average hitting a 5 week low on Friday with large volume and if you’ve followed me on any of my previous blogs I generally place my stop at the 10 day high or low as an exit strategy, but as I stated earlier I am a long term investor on the five year note as I think rates are moving higher over the course of time and this is a trade you might stay in for 2 years but take advantage of historically low rates because eventually the Federal Government will stop there bond purchases it’s just a matter of when. If you have any questions on how to structure a portfolio to getting short the bond market while taking advantage of historically low rates feel free to contact me anytime will be more than happy to help.
TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: AWFUL

Subscribe to our Free Market Technical Analysis and Commentary

Coffee Futures in the May contract are trading above their 20 day moving average and are trading 8000 points higher than their 100 day moving average that’s how far prices have come in the last 6 weeks as the drought in central Brazil continues its stranglehold on coffee growing regions pushing prices sharply higher currently trading at 198 in the May contract and I’ve been recommending a long position in coffee and if you’re still in this market I would place my stop below the 10 day low which is currently 170 as the chart structure is starting to improve & if you been reading my previous blogs I received a very interesting email last week from one of the largest coffee producers in Brazil and he was stating that there crop was absolutely devastated and there could be long term ramifications into next year as well and he also showed me many pictures of coffee trees and they were decimated too so I continue to remain bullish this market, however this market is extremely volatile at the current time so look at some July bull call option spreads as my next level is up to 2.50/2.75 as a possible target.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: IMPROVING

20 Survival Skills for the Successful Trader

Sugar futures in the May contract sold off 31 points this Friday afternoon in New York but still finished higher by about 40 points for the trading week continuing its bullish trend as the drought in central Brazil is pushing up prices in recent weeks and I continue to recommend a bullish position in sugar while placing your stop loss at the 10 day low which currently stands at 17.00 which is about 100 points away or $1,100 per contract. This is the 3rd consecutive week that sugar has traded higher and has turned from a bear market into a bull market with the next major resistance around 19/1950 which was hit last October and I do believe prices could go back up to those levels as the commodity markets in general have turned higher as the CRB index its trading at its highest level since October 2012 as many commodities are at all time highs. Anything grown in Brazil at this time due to the drought seems to be moving higher so I remain bullish the entire soft commodity complex just make sure that you do have an exit strategy in case prices turn around. Sugar futures are still trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average telling you that the trend currently is higher.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Advanced Crude Oil Study – The 15 Minute Range

Corn futures in the December contract which is the new crop which will be harvested this fall was down $.05 at 4.84 but rallied about $.13 for the trading week closing on a disappointing note in Chicago and I’ve been recommending a bullish position in corn for quite some time while placing my stop at the 10 day low which currently stands at 4.60 risking around $.24 from today’s level or $1,200 per contract as traders are awaiting Mondays USDA crop report. The chart structure in corn is outstanding at this time and that is why am recommending this trade as prices are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average continuing the bullish trend as Spring is right around the corner here in Chicago as there is still large amounts of snow in the fields but we are starting to warm up this week with 40/50° days and this should be an extremely volatile year in corn as prices will have tremendous fluctuations due to weather conditions.

The whisper number for Monday’s crop report is around 92 million acres as last year was 97 million acres planted so the crop probably will not be a record this year as we harvested nearly 14 billion last year but this will be a long growing season but at the current time. I’m recommending buying on weakness making sure that you have some type of exit strategy as I think commodities as a whole are going higher.
TREND: HIGHER CHART
STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Click here to get more of Mike's commodity calls for this week!


Saturday, March 8, 2014

What 10 Baggers (and 100 Baggers) Look Like

By Jeff Clark, Senior Precious Metals Analyst

Now that it appears clear the bottom is in for gold, it’s time to stop fretting about how low prices will drop and how long the correction will last—and start looking at how high they’ll go and when they’ll get there. When viewing the gold market from a historical perspective, one thing that’s clear is that the junior mining stocks tend to fluctuate between extreme boom and bust cycles. As a group, they’ll double in price, then crash by 75%..... then double or triple or even quadruple again, only to crash 90%. Boom, bust, repeat.

Given that we just completed a major bust cycle—and not just any bust cycle, but one of the harshest on record, according to many veteran insiders—the setup for a major rally in gold stocks is right in front of us.

This may sound sensationalistic, but based on past historical patterns and where we think gold prices are headed, the odds are high that, on average, gold producers will trade in the $200 per share range before the next cycle is over. With most of them currently trading between $20 and $40, the returns could be stupendous. And the percentage returns of the typical junior will be greater by an order of magnitude, providing life changing gains to smart investors.

What you’re about to see are historical returns of both producers and juniors during three separate boom cycles. These are factual returns; they are not hypothetical. And if you accept the fact that this market moves in cycles, you know it’s about to happen again.

Gold had a spectacular climb in 1979-1980, and gold stocks in general gave a staggering performance at that time—many of them becoming 10-baggers (1,000% gains and more). While this is a well known fact, few researchers have bothered to identify exact returns from specific companies during this era.

Digging up hard data from before the mid-1980s, especially for the junior explorers, is difficult because the information wasn’t computerized at the time. So I sent my nephew Grant to the library to view the Wall Street Journal on microfiche. We also include information we’ve had from Scott Hunter of Haywood Securities; Larry Page, then-president of the Manex Resource Group; and the dusty archives at the Northern Miner.

Note: This means our tables, while accurate, are not at all comprehensive.

Let’s get started…...

The Quintessential Bull Market: 1979-1980

The granddaddy of gold bull cycles occurred during the 1970s, culminating in an unabashed mania in 1979 and 1980. Gold peaked at $850 an ounce on January 21, 1980, a rise of 276% from the beginning of 1979. (Yes, the price of gold on the last trading day of 1978 was a mere $226 an ounce.)

Here’s a sampling of gold producer stock prices from this era. What you’ll notice in addition to the amazing returns is that gold stocks didn’t peak until nine months after gold did.

Returns of Producers in 1979-1980 Mania
Company Price on
12/29/1978
Sept. 1980
Peak
Return
Campbell Lake Mines $28.25 $94.75 235.4%
Dome Mines $78.25 $154.00 96.8%
Hecla Mining $5.12 $53.00 935.2%
Homestake Mining $30.00 $107.50 258.3%
Newmont Mining $21.50 $60.62 182.0%
Dickinson Mines $6.88 $27.50 299.7%
Sigma Mines $36.00 $57.00 58.3%
Giant Yellowknife Mines $11.13 $39.00 250.4%
AVERAGE 289.5%

Today, GDX is selling for $26.05 (as of February 26, 2014); if it mimicked the average 289.5% return, the price would reach $101.46.

Keep in mind, though, that our data measures the exact top of each company’s price. Most investors, of course, don’t sell at the very peak. If we were to able to grab, say, 80% of the climb, that’s still a return of 231.6%.

Here’s a sampling of how some successful junior gold stocks performed in the same period, along with the month each of them peaked.

Returns of Juniors in 1979-1980 Mania
Company Price on
12/29/1978
Price
Peak
Date
of Peak
Return
Carolin Mines $3.10 $57.00 Oct. 80 1,738.7%
Mosquito Creek Gold $0.70 $7.50 Oct. 80 971.4%
Northair Mines $3.00 $10.00 Oct. 80 233.3%
Silver Standard $0.58 $2.51 Mar. 80 332.8%
Lincoln Resources $0.78 $20.00 Oct. 80 2,464.1%
Lornex $15.00 $85.00 Oct. 80 466.7%
Imperial Metals $0.36 $1.95 Mar. 80 441.7%
Anglo-Bomarc Mines $1.80 $6.85 Oct. 80 280.6%
Avino Mines 0.33 5.5 Dec. 80 1,566.7%
Copper Lake $0.08 $10.50 Sep. 80 13,025.0%
David Minerals $1.15 $21.00 Oct. 80 1,726.1%
Eagle River Mines $0.19 $6.80 Dec. 80 3,478.9%
Meston Lake Resources $0.80 $10.50 Oct. 80 1,212.5%
Silverado Mines $0.26 $10.63 Oct. 80 3,988.5%
Wharf Resources $0.33 $9.50 Nov. 80 2,778.8%
AVERAGE 2,313.7%


If you had bought a reasonably diversified portfolio of top-performing gold juniors prior to 1979, your initial investment could have grown 23 times in just two years. If you had managed to grab 80% of that move, your gains would still have been over 1,850%.

This means a junior priced at $0.50 today that captured the average gain from this boom would sell for $12 at the top, or $9.75 at 80%. If you own ten juniors, imagine just one of them matching Copper Lake’s better than 100-bagger performance.

Here’s what returns of this magnitude could mean to you. Let’s say your portfolio includes $10,000 in gold juniors that yield spectacular gains such as the above. If the next boom cycle matches the 1979-1980 pattern, your portfolio could be worth $241,370 at its peak… or about $195,000 if you exit at 80% of the top prices.

Note that this does require that you sell to realize your profits. If you don’t take the money and run at some point, you may end up with little more than tears to fill an empty beer mug. In the subsequent bust cycle, many junior gold stocks, including some in the above list, dried up and blew away. Investors who held on to the bitter end not only saw all their gains evaporate, but lost their entire investments.
You have to play the cycle.

Returns from that era have been written about before, so I can hear some investors saying, “Yeah, but that only happened once.”

Au contraire. Read on…...

The Hemlo Rally of 1981-1983

Many investors don’t know that there have been several bull cycles in gold and gold stocks since the 1979-1980 period.

Ironically, gold was flat during the two years of the Hemlo rally. But something else ignited a bull market. Discovery. Here’s how it happened…...

Back in the day, most exploration was done by teams from the major producers. But because of lagging gold prices and the resulting need to cut overhead, they began to slash their exploration budgets, unleashing a swarm of experienced geologists armed with the knowledge of high potential mineral targets they’d explored while working for the majors. Many formed their own companies and went after these targets.

This led to a series of spectacular discoveries, the first of which occurred in mid 1982, when Golden Sceptre and Goliath Gold discovered the Golden Giant deposit in the Hemlo area of eastern Canada. Gold prices rallied that summer, setting off a mini bull market that lasted until the following May. The public got involved, and as you can see, the results were impressive for such a short period of time.

Returns of Producers Related to Hemlo Rally of 1981-1983
Company 1981
Price
Price
Peak
Date
of High
Return
Agnico-Eagle $9.50 $21.00 Aug. 83 121.1%
Sigma $14.13 $24.50 Jan. 83 73.4%
Campbell Red Lake $16.63 $41.25 May 83 148.0%
Sullivan $3.85 $6.00 Mar. 84 55.8%
Teck Corp Class B $17.00 $21.88 Jun. 81 28.7%
Noranda $33.75 $36.38 Jun. 81 7.8%
AVERAGE 72.5%

Gold producers, on average, returned over 70% on investors’ money during this period. While these aren’t the same spectacular gains from just a few years earlier, keep in mind they occurred over only about 12 months’ time. This would be akin to a $20 gold stock soaring to $34.50 by this time next year, just because it’s located in a significant discovery area.

Once again, it was the juniors that brought the dazzling returns.

Returns of Juniors Related to Hemlo Rally of 1981-1983
Company 1981
Price
Price
Peak
Date
of High
Return
Corona Resources $1.10 $61.00 May 83 5,445.5%
Golden Sceptre $0.40 $31.00 May 83 7,650.0%
Goliath Gold $0.45 $32.00 Mar 83 7,011.1%
Bel-Air Resources $0.81 $1.60 Jan. 83 97.5%
Interlake Development $2.10 $6.40 Mar. 83 204.8%
AVERAGE 4,081.8%

The average return for these junior gold stocks that had a direct interest in the Hemlo area exceeded a whopping 4,000%.

This is especially impressive when you realize that it occurred without the gold stock industry as a whole participating. This tells us that a big discovery can lead to enormous gains, even if the industry as a whole is flat.

In other words, we have historical precedence that humongous returns are possible without a mania, by owning stocks with direct exposure to a discovery area. There are numerous examples of this in the past ten years, as any longtime reader of the International Speculator can attest.

By May 1983, roughly a year after it started, gold prices started back down again, spelling the end of that cycle—another reminder that one must sell to realize a profit.

The Roaring ’90s

By the time the ’90s rolled around, many junior exploration companies had acquired the “intellectual capital” they needed from the majors. Another series of gold discoveries in the mid-1990s set off one of the most stunning bull markets in the current generation.

Companies with big discoveries included Diamet, Diamond Fields, and Arequipa. This was also the time of the famous Bre-X scandal, a company that appeared to have made a stupendous discovery, but that was later found to have been “salting” its drill data (cheating).

By the summer of ’96, these discoveries had sparked another bull cycle, and companies with little more than a few drill holes were selling for $20 a share.

The table below, which includes some of the better-known names of the day, is worth the proverbial thousand words. The average producer more than tripled investors’ money during this period. Once again, these gains occurred in a relatively short period of time, in this case inside of two years.

Returns of Producers in Mid-1990s Bull Market
Company Pre-Bull
Market Price
Price
Peak
Date
of High
Return
Kinross Gold $5.00 $14.62 Feb. 96 192.4%
American Barrick $28.13 $44.25 Feb. 96 57.3%
Placer Dome $26.50 $41.37 Feb. 96 56.1%
Newmont $47.26 $82.46 Feb. 96 74.5%
Manhattan $1.50 $13.00 Nov. 96 766.7%
Cambior $10.00 $22.35 Jun. 96 123.5%
AVERAGE 211.7%

Here’s how some of the juniors performed. And if you’re the kind of investor with the courage to buy low and the discipline to sell during a frenzy, it can be worth a million dollars. Hold on to your hat.

Returns of Juniors in Mid-1990s Bull Market
Company Pre-Bull
Market Price
Price
Peak
Date
of High
Return
Cartaway $0.10 $26.14 May 96 26,040.0%
Golden Star $6.00 $27.50 Oct. 96 358.3%
Samex Mining $1.00 $7.20 May 96 620.0%
Pacific Amber $0.21 $9.40 Aug. 96 4,376.2%
Conquistador $0.50 $9.87 Mar. 96 1,874.0%
Corriente $1.00 $19.50 Mar. 97 1,850.0%
Valerie Gold $1.50 $28.90 May 96 1,826.7%
Arequipa $0.60 $34.75 May 96 5,691.7%
Bema Gold $2.00 $12.75 Aug. 96 537.5%
Farallon $0.80 $20.25 May 96 2,431.3%
Arizona Star $0.50 $15.95 Aug. 96 3,090.0%
Cream Minerals $0.30 $9.45 May 96 3,050.0%
Francisco Gold $1.00 $34.50 Mar. 97 3,350.0%
Mansfield $0.70 $10.50 Aug. 96 1,400.0%
Oliver Gold $0.40 $6.80 Oct. 96 1,600.0%
AVERAGE 3,873.0%

Many analysts refer to the 1970s bull market as the granddaddy of them all—and to a certain extent it was—but you’ll notice that the average return of these stocks during the late ’90s bull exceeds what the juniors did in the 1979-1980 boom.

This is akin to that $0.50 junior stock today reaching $19.86… or $16, if you snag 80% of the move. A $10,000 portfolio with similar returns would grow to over $397,000 (or over $319,000 on 80%).

Gold Stocks and Depression

Those of you in the deflation camp may dismiss all this because you’re convinced the Great Deflation is ahead. Fair enough. But you’d be wrong to assume gold stocks can’t do well in that environment.

Take a look at the returns of the two largest producers in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a period that saw significant price deflation.

Returns of Producers
During the Great Depression
Company 1929
Price
1933
Price
Total
Gain
Homestake Mining $65 $373 474%
Dome Mines $6 $39.50 558%

During a period of soup lines, crashing stock markets, and a fixed gold price, large gold producers handed investors five and six times their money in four years. If deflation “wins,” we still think gold equity investors can, too.

How to Capitalize on This Cycle

History shows that precious metals stocks move in cycles. We’ve now completed a major bust cycle and, we believe, are on the cusp of a tremendous boom. The only way to make the kind of money outlined above is to buy before the boom is in full swing. That’s now. For most readers, this is literally a once in a lifetime opportunity.

As you can see above, there can be great variation among the returns of the companies. That’s why, even if you believe we’re destined for an “all boats rise” scenario, you still want to own the better companies.

My colleague Louis James, Casey’s chief metals and mining investment strategist, has identified the nine junior mining stocks that are most likely to become 10 baggers this year in their special report, the 10-Bagger List for 2014. Read more here.


The article What 10-Baggers (and 100-Baggers) Look Like was originally published at Casey Research.




Where Should You Place Your Stops?

Identifying where stops exist in the market is an important lesson to learn because placing a correct stop loss will improve your trading tremendously over the course of time. Nobody knows for sure where stops should be located, however we have learned a couple of things over our 30 year career and we have a general idea where stops are placed and why.

Buy stops are generally placed above the 10 day high as well as above contract highs as the bulls generally are buying more and the short selling are getting stopped out. Sell stops are usually placed at the 10 day low as well as below contract lows which means the shorts are adding to their position and the longs are getting stopped out as they figure they are wrong. The other common places to have stops are at certain moving averages such as the 20 or 100 day moving average where traders think either the trend is turning bullish or the market is starting to break down.

Placing stops to close or not at important price levels can get very frustrating because the market can stop you out and then go the direction that you thought leaving you behind and out of the market. Placing stops is one of the most important aspects of trading in my opinion.

"What 10-Baggers (and 100-Baggers) Look Like"


Maximizing Your IRA: An Interview with Terry Coxon

By Dennis Miller

As working folks get closer to hanging up their spurs, it is easy to become overwhelmed. When should you take Social Security? What type of insurance do you need? Should you buy an annuity? Do you need nursing home insurance? Should you roll over your 401(k) into an IRA? The list goes on and on.


Retirement planning requires many irreversible decisions. We each need to get it right; however, what is right for us is not always right for someone else. And, in addition to basic number crunching, we each make assumptions about life and politics—sometimes without even realizing it.

One of my most significant personal decisions pertained to a Roth IRA. Managing your traditional or Roth IRA is an ongoing process, no matter how near or far you are from retirement. And the options are worth investigating regardless of the size of your portfolio. Making sure your money lasts requires much more than picking the right stocks. Owning those stocks—or whatever else you invest in—inside the right type of account can grow your portfolio faster and save you thousands of dollars in taxes, if not more.

I’m not shy about seeking out experts in different investment niches. In this spirit, I reached out to Terry Coxon, a senior economist and editor at Casey Research and principal in Passport IRA.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I want to add that Terry has taken the time to mentor me on occasion, and he’s encouraged me to bring some of my vast life experience to our readers. As Terry has reminded me from time to time, math is only part of the retirement puzzle—the uncertainties inherent to politics and the law are also integral pieces.

Terry travels the world, and I was lucky to catch him upon his return from a recent trip to the Cook Islands.

Dennis Miller: Terry, welcome. Many investors use a traditional IRA or retired with a lump sum from their 401(k). Can you tell us how a Roth IRA differs from those plans?

Terry Coxon: With a traditional IRA, if your income isn’t too high, you get a tax deduction for your annual contribution. But later, the money you withdraw is taxable as ordinary income, except to the extent of any non-deductible contributions you made. In the meantime, earnings accumulate without current tax, which helps the money grow much faster.

A Roth IRA is different. With a Roth IRA, you don’t get a tax deduction for your contributions; but all the withdrawals you later make can be tax free. The only requirements for keeping withdrawals 100% tax free are: (a) the Roth IRA must be in at least its fifth calendar year of existence; and (b) you must have reached the calendar year in which you will be at least 59 1/2 years old. As with a traditional IRA, earnings accumulate and compound free of current tax – which is the special power source of any retirement plan.
Most 401(k) accounts are similar to a traditional IRA in that contributions are deductible; withdrawals are taxable; and while they stay inside the account, earnings go untaxed. However, there is a variant called a Roth 401(k) that is available to sole proprietors and to participants in employer plans whose rules provide for Roths. With a Roth 401(k), there is no deduction for money that goes in; the money is invested free of current tax; and everything can be tax-free when it comes out.

Fleeing the High Tax Zone

 

Dennis: When I retired, I had a 401(k), and then rolled it over to a traditional IRA. As I began to understand the Roth IRA, I realized there were real benefits to putting my nest egg in a Roth. I had a CPA tell me not to do it, and he ran the numbers to show me why.

In April 2012, you published an article, Doing the Roth Arithmetic, which painted a much different picture. Can you explain all the factors and why they are so important?

Terry: Staying with a traditional plan or going to a Roth is a big decision, and it’s not always an easy or simple one. The decision needs to be based on the individual’s current circumstances, which are a matter of fact, and also on his hard-to-know future circumstances. Make the right decision, and you can come out way ahead. Let’s look at two extreme situations—which is helpful because extreme situations point to clear answers.

Situation #1 is the individual who has all of his investments in an IRA or other retirement plan, who is not in the top tax bracket, who expects that his tax rate is more likely to decline than to rise, and who expects to consume all of his assets in his own lifetime. That individual has nothing to gain by going the Roth route and might be walking into a higher tax bill if he takes it. If that description fits you, sit tight with your traditional IRA or 401(k).

Situation #2 is the individual with substantial investments outside of retirement plans, who is in or near the top tax bracket and expects to stay there, and who has more than he needs to live on for the rest of his life. That individual should definitely convert to a Roth. He’ll have to pay a big tax bill now rather than later, but he’ll get the better of the bargain. He will be buying out his minority partner—the government—that in any case will, sooner or later, collect 40% or so of his traditional IRA in taxes.

The money for the tax bill can and should come out of the individual’s non-IRA assets—which live in a high tax zone. That way, the net effect of converting to a Roth is to move capital from the high-tax zone (direct personal ownership) to the no-tax zone (the Roth).

You can get an added bonus by converting to a Roth IRA, and it’s a lot more valuable than a second ShamWow. A Roth IRA is not subject to the minimum withdrawal requirements that kick in at age 70 1/2 for someone with a traditional IRA. Escaping the minimum withdrawal requirements lets money stay in the no-tax zone longer, especially if you won’t need to spend it all in your own lifetime.

Don’t ask why, but unlike a Roth IRA, a Roth 401(k) is subject to minimum withdrawal requirements. However, you can convert a Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA without tax cost.

Dennis: I have a friend who has a traditional IRA and is of the age where he has to take a required minimum distribution and pay taxes on the income. He is quite a bit older than his wife and would prefer to leave the money in the sheltered account. With a Roth IRA, are there any required withdrawal times or amounts?

Terry: Your friend is a good candidate for a Roth conversion. If he converts, he can stop making the withdrawals he doesn’t want to make. And once the Roth reaches its fifth calendar year, withdrawals he or his wife take will be tax-free. And if his wife doesn’t use it up, the Roth will be available for tax-free withdrawals by their children or other heirs.

Self-Directed and Open Opportunity IRAs

 

Dennis: A lot of folks think you have to have an IRA with a bank or brokerage company. Can you explain the concept behind self-directed Roth IRAs?

Terry: Quite a few people will be knocked over by the news, but the rules written by Congress allow an IRA to invest in almost anything (there are only a few, easy-to-live-with limitations). But when you go to a bank, broker, mutual fund family, or insurance company, you find that you can only invest in… their stuff. So go elsewhere.

“Self-directed” IRAs are available with a number of IRA custodians that specialize in opening doors to the full world of investment possibilities for IRA participants. They don’t promote any particular investments or investment products. Instead, they earn fees by doing the paperwork for pulling whatever investments you want under the umbrella of your IRA. It could be an apartment house or a farm or gold coins or private loans or tax liens or almost anything else. Rather than buying CDs from a bank, your IRA can be the bank.
It can be even better. A few custodians administer a special type of self-directed IRA called an “Open Opportunity” IRA. The idea is as powerful as it is simple. The IRA owns just one thing—a limited liability company that you manage. Since you are the manager, you have hands-on control, and you are free to buy almost any investment you think is right. You don’t need to wait for anyone’s permission or stamp of approval. The hands on the steering wheel are yours.

Dennis: What tips do you have for folks who want to roll their 401(k) over to a Roth? When should they start? Should they pay the taxes from the proceeds or other funds?

Terry: As I said earlier, the decision to convert isn’t simple. The best single indication that it is the right move is that you are able to pay the tax out of non-retirement-plan assets.

Dennis: I recently wrote an article about encore careers. If a retiree decides on a second career, can he start making contributions to his Roth?

Terry: Yes, no, and yes.

The first yes is: you are as eligible to contribute from your earnings from your encore career as you were during your earlier careers.

The no is: if your income is too high, you are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA.

The second yes is: Anyone can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. There are no income limitations. So you can always get to a Roth by contributing to a traditional IRA and then converting. The required waiting period is less than 15 nanoseconds.

Internationalizing Your IRA

 

Dennis: I’ve recently spoken with Nick Giambruno, senior editor of International Man, about international diversification. Can you help us understand our international options if we have money in a Roth?

Terry: This is one more wonderful thing about the Open Opportunity IRA structure. The LLC that lives inside the IRA can invest anywhere in the world. Want a brokerage account in Singapore? The IRA’s LLC can be the account holder. Want a farm? The LLC can buy it in New Zealand. Want gold? The LLC can keep it in a safe deposit box in Austria. Want your IRA to go into the ski rental business? The IRA’s LLC can open a shop in Chile. And the IRA’s LLC can own—or be—a foreign LLC.

Dennis: I have a good portion of my Roth offshore, but it is not inside an LLC. It is invested in traditional investments—stocks, bonds, etc., except on a worldwide basis and in a variety of foreign currencies. Are there times when an LLC might not be necessary?

Terry: Whatever you want your IRA to buy and wherever you want the investments to reside, doing everything through your IRA’s wholly owned LLC is quicker, easier, and cheaper. With the LLC in place, you don’t need to keeping going back to the IRA custodian for every transaction. You avoid fees and you avoid delays. You are in the driver’s seat.

Using a foreign LLC to hold foreign investments may give you two additional advantages. First, some foreign institutions are more willing to deal with a non-US LLC owned by a US person than they are to deal directly with a US person. Second, if the US government ever imposes currency controls or capital controls or undertakes a program of forced gold sales, an IRA’s foreign LLC—depending on the specifics of the new rules—might go untouched.

Dennis: Terry, I want to thank you on behalf of our readers. You have opened up avenues for real tax savings and additional safety.

Terry: People work hard, and it is tough for some to save money. Understanding their Roth IRA options is a good way for people to keep it and make it last. Enjoyed it, Dennis—glad I could help.

Final Thoughts from Dennis

 

With a traditional IRA, you get a tax deduction when you make your contribution, and that money grows tax-free. When you take it back out, it is subject to taxation.

A Roth works in the opposite manner. There is no tax deduction when you make the contribution, but it also grows tax-free. The difference is that when you take it out, there is no tax as long as you follow a few basic rules, which Terry discussed.

I am a strong advocate of maximizing your 401(k), particularly if your employer matches all or part of your contributions. Save as much money as you possibly can during your working career. At the same time, there are many reasons why, as Terry suggested, you might want buy out your business partner (the government) so you can grow your nest egg tax-free and make tax-free withdrawals as you see fit.

As you’ve just read, as the editor of Miller's Money Forever, I often have the pleasure of interviewing my colleagues on a variety of topics to give our subscribers even greater exposure to different investing sectors. Recent interviews include:
  • Energy Profits with Marin Katusa, senior economist and editor at Casey Research;
  • The Ultimate Layer of Financial Protection with Nick Giambruno, editor of International Man;
  • Juniors for Seniors with Louis James, globe-trotting senior editor of Casey Research's metals and mining publications; and
  • Other esteemed colleagues.
Gain access to everything our portfolio has to offer, as well as access to these top minds through occasional interviews and input, with your risk free 90 day trial subscription to Miller's Money Forever.

The article Maximizing Your IRA: An Interview with Terry Coxon was originally published at Millers Money.


Make sure you don't miss "What 10-Baggers [and 100-baggers] Look Like"


Thursday, March 6, 2014

How Much Will a 15% Hair Cut Cost Your Investment Capital?

Over the past few weeks I have been watching the DOW and Transportation index closely because it looks and feels like the Dow Theory may play out this year and the stock market could take a 15% haircut.

But what if you skipped on the haircut and opted for a 40% refund?  What? Keep reading to find out how.

Keeping this post short and sweet, I think the U.S. stock market is setting up for a sharp selloff. And it will look a lot like the July 2011 correction. If my calculations are correct this will happen in the next 3-9 weeks and we will see a 15% drop from our current levels. Only time will tell, but I have a way to hedge against this with very little downside risk to you ETF portfolio.

The Dow Theory Live Example for ETF Portfolio

The daily chart of the SP500 index below shows our current trend analysis with green bars signaling an uptrend, orange being neutral, and red signaling bearish price action. Currently the bars are green and we can expect prices to have an upward bias.

The Dow Theory could be  in play. When both the Transports (IYT) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DIA) cannot make higher highs and start making lower lows, according to the Dow Theory the broad stock market is topping.

We are watching the market closely because they have both made lower highs and lows.  This rally could stall in the next couple weeks and if so we expect a 15% correction.



Model ETF Portfolio



Take a look at the 2011 Stock Market Crash

Model ETF Portfolio Trading

The chart above shows how fearful traders have a delayed reaction to moving money from stocks to a mix of risk-off assets.

The choppy market condition during August and September clearly helped in frustrating investors and created more uncertainty. This helped prices of this ETF portfolio fund rally long after the initial selloff took place. This is something I feel will take place again in the near future and subscribers of my ETF newsletter will benefit from this move.

Because we have a Dow Theory setup, our risk levels are clearly defined as to when to exit the trade if it does not play out in our favor. But with the potential to make 40% and the downside risk only being 4%, it’s the perfect setup for a large portion of our ETF portfolio. And just so you know this is not a precious metals trade as we are already long that sector and up 10% in that position already.

Get My Daily Video Forecasts & ETF Trades Today


Chris Vermeulen
The Gold & Oil Guy.com