Economic Events on May 19, 2011

At 8:30 AM EDT, the U.S. government will release its weekly Jobless Claims report.  The consensus is that there were 425,000 new jobless claims last week, which would would be 9,000 less than the number released last week.

At 9:45 AM EDT, the weekly Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index will be released, providing an update on Americans’ views of the U.S. economy, their personal finances and the buying climate.

At 10:00 AM EDT, the Existing Home Sales report for April will be released.  The consensus is that existing homes were sold at an annual rate of 5.2 million last month, which would be an increase of 100,000 from last month.

Also at 10:00 AM EDT, the Leading Indicators report for April will be released.  The consensus is that this index was unchanged last month.

Also at 10:00 AM EDT, the Philadelphia Fed Survey report for May will be released.  The consensus is that the index will be at 23, which would be an increase of 5.5 points from the previous month.

At 10:30 AM EDT, the weekly Energy Information Administration Natural Gas Report will be released, giving an update on natural gas inventories in the United States.

At 4:30 PM EDT, the Federal Reserve will release its Money Supply report, showing the amount of liquidity available in the U.S. economy.

Also at 4:30 PM EDT, the Federal Reserve will release its Balance Sheet report, showing the amount of liquidity the Fed has injected into the economy by adding or removing reserves.

Pop Goes the College Bubble

Enrollment will decline once this becomes common knowledge:

The brutal job market brought on by the recession has been hard on everyone, but especially devastating on the youngest members of the labor force.

About 60% of recent graduates have not been able to find a full-time job in their chosen profession, according to job placement firm Adecco.

And for those just entering the workplace, a bout of long-term unemployment can affect their career plans for years to come.

I have two friends from college who graduated recently. One of them has an Associate’s in graphics design; the other has a dual-major Bachelor’s in graphics design and business administration with a minor in marketing. They both work at Target. They both have tens of thousands of dollars in student debt.
I have another friend who graduated a year ago with an Associate’s in network security. He makes minimum wage working at Walmart and pays $400+ per month on his student loans.
These guys are relatively intelligent and quite hard-working and reliable. They are educated. And they work crap jobs because they have to pay off a ton of debt that they accrued pursuing a piece of paper that hasn’t actually improved their job prospects.
And so, my advice to any all high school seniors is this: when you graduate, get jobs anywhere you can and forget about going to college. Look into an apprenticeship, if possible. Alternatively, learn a trade and start developing work contacts. College is not worth the cost anymore, unless you’re going into a hard science or engineering. Medicine is socialized, so avoid it all costs.
Computer science is mostly overrated because you can learn everything you need to know online. Everything else is B.S.
If you go to college, you will have debt that you cannot ever default out of; you have to pay it back. You will lose at least four years of your life. And on top of all this, you are not more employable with your degree than you were as a high school graduate. There are better things to do with your life than earn a college degree.

Rehan Rashid: Shales Spur New Supercycle of Energy Production

Rehan Rashid Over the next two decades, liquid and natural gas shales could release a treasure trove of new energy production. But even given this extraordinary new resource, FBR Capital Markets Head of Energy and Natural Resources Research Rehan Rashid expects demand to stay ahead of supply. Rehans’s long-term bullish scenario favors a few select names that he shares with The Energy Report in this exclusive interview.

The Energy Report: Your coverage universe is mid-cap to very large, and I even see a couple of companies under a billion dollars in market cap. Could you tell me your basic investment theory?

Rehan Rashid: We believe an energy supercycle is redefining how we look for oil and gas, thus driving reserve and production growth the likes of which we have already seen in natural gas and are now seeing unfold on the liquids and oil side. And yes, this is applicable to small cap names, perhaps sometimes more dramatically like we’re seeing in Rosetta Resources Inc. (NASDAQ:ROSE) today.

TER: Your list looks to be largely tied to commodity price and perhaps M&A activity.

RR: I’m kind of a commodity agnostic. Instead, we are margin-driven. It’s all about margins and what’s currently priced into the stock. It could be oil, gas or something in between. We are more focused on the platform—the acreage position or the capital structure that goes into a good bottom up thought process.

TER: You just mentioned your supercycle thesis. We’ve already gotten the low-hanging fruit from conventional drilling, but you believe we’re getting this new supercycle of energy from the shales? Is that correct?

RR: Yes. U.S. natural gas production quadrupled from 15 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 1950 to more than 60 Bcf/d of dry gas by 1970. That’s kind of when the last paradigm shift finally played itself out and we discovered a lot of what was then known as conventional gas. So, it’s our estimation that yes, history is repeating itself under a different name.

TER: And this momentum is driven by new technology.

RR: Absolutely. The question in the investor’s mind is no longer whether this new reserve or production growth is really happening, but rather what is its magnitude and what is the path that it might take? Also, how fast will this technology facilitate the harder stuff, such as oil shales or liquids development, including processing and all the other above ground infrastructure issues?

TER: How long can this supercycle last?

RR: The answer to that question is probably two-fold. First, we need to know how long it will take for growth to play out. Second, we need to know how quickly the market will recognize the value. Natural gas production took 20 years to quadruple from 15 Bcf/d to 60 Bcf/d in the last go-round, right? So, physically speaking, it may take a long time—a decade, two decades—to get the appropriate volume of oil and gas out of the ground. But the market will stay multiple years in front of that. The market typically likes to stay 6–12 months ahead, but in a growth cycle, it probably goes out 24–36 months. So, in my opinion, the overall evolution of the trajectory of the growth is going to peak 10–15 years from now, and the stocks will price in 12–36 months going forward at any given time.

TER: Okay, in light of that, you’ve lowered your full-year price forecast on natural gas from $5/mcf to $4.80/mcf, but you’re maintaining your 2012 forecast at $5.50/mcf. Why wouldn’t this price drop?

RR: I presume you’re alluding to the idea that the existing supply of natural gas may result in pressures at these levels or even lower?

TER: That’s my question, yes.

RR: That’s a complicated question with a lot of inputs that will drive gas prices higher going forward. In the middle of 2008 and early 2009, we were the first ones to lower the long-term price to $4.50/mcf. We saw what was happening two years ago and said that gas prices would have to correct to these levels before we can talk about any change in direction. We saw that two years ago, but now we’re trying to look further out.

What we’re seeing slowly but steadily now is that the market is responding. Chemical companies are coming back and power generation companies are favoring more and more natural gas. Plus, environmental regulations are making it more difficult to burn coal. So, consumption factors are shifting to favor more demand. In addition, what people forget is that yes, while shale is going through a massive growth cycle, almost 40 Bcf/d of existing supply is old, conventional assets that are seeing no capital investment and is going to decline. I think between improving demand, continued shale growth and declining conventional supply, we will see a balance of supply and demand leading $5.50/mcf gas.

TER: What is your oil forecast?

RR: Well, oil is a much tougher beast because of global drivers. It’s not lost on us that global spare productive capacity is too low. We also see that global geopolitics are for real and manifest themselves in a whole host of different ways. The future of the dollar is under question. So, we will let the broader futures market aggregate all that and come up with a pricing forecast. We will take a 10% haircut off that and build it into our models. In other words, we don’t actively forecast oil prices, but we understand the broader dynamics, and that’s why we’re okay with letting the market set the direction.

TER: From your perspective, is the price of oil U.S. dollar-dependent?

RR: It is dependent on the U.S. dollar, geopolitics, tight spare capacity and, of course, the continued globalization and urbanization growth stories that come of out of China, India and BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China] in general. It’s dollar; it’s geopolitics; and it’s economy.

TER: We’ve seen some recent pull back in nearly all commodities. Could this be a trend, or is it a normal part of the cycle?

RR: Well, we went from $85/bbl oil to $112/bbl or so. At $4-plus a gallon gasoline at the retail level, demand could be affected. The market is going to react with a correction. The direction of the price will be dependent upon the ability of the world to absorb the higher oil prices, and the U.S. dollar.

TER: Rehan, you have said that the primary risk in investing in oil and gas producing companies is depressed commodity prices. How does the investor manage these risks?

RR: It may be difficult in the near term to be agnostic to commodity prices, but over time, margins, asset growth and production growth should really drive value creation. If oil prices drop, cost structures will also come down and margins will improve again. But you have to endure that yin and yang over time.

TER: Should investors be adding more exploration and development to their portfolio weightings?

RR: Yes, they should because in our opinion at the beginning stages of this supercycle, the risk-adjusted returns are much higher.

TER: How should the companies protect themselves? Is this the time to have capital structure fixed for the future?

RR: It is always prudent to have a reasonable portion of your commodity portfolio hedged in the financial markets. The value proposition for companies is not simply in commodity exposure, but also in value creation from their technical competence. So, yes, we like companies that have cash flows to execute the program.

TER: For equity investors, where are you telling them they should be today?

RR: To be name-specific, we like Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (NYSE:PXD) quite a bit. We like Newfield Exploration Co. (NYSE:NFX). We like Southwestern Energy Co. (NYSE:SWN). We like Endeavour International Corp. (NYSE.A:END). All these companies offer some margin of valuation or asset growth, or they’re not fully appreciated in terms of their platform.

TER: You have Pioneer rated outperform and you said earlier in the spring that the flow rates from its horizontal Wolfcamp drilling would set the price direction for the rest of this year. How is that looking?

RR: Well, the results are mixed so far, but I am probably repeating what the market is thinking. Our opinion is that it’s just the beginning, but there’s so much oil in place and technology will ultimately resolve the gap of where their productivity is today and where it’s going to go tomorrow. EOG Resources Inc. (NYSE:EOG) validated that recently in its earnings call that Wolfcamp and Permian horizontals looked good, and they’ll get better. So initially, Pioneer may be mixed, but the industry’s saying this will get tremendously better.

TER: You mentioned Newfield; your target price is $85, which is an implied return of 20% from current levels. I realize you don’t worry about commodity prices too much, but this is an oil-driven play. If oil settles at current prices, can Newfield achieve your target price?

RR: Yes, we use $90/bbl oil long term in our metrics and we have not adjusted the numbers higher for $110/bbl or anything like that. Our underlying presumption right now is $90/bbl oil long term and Newfield can very well achieve those objectives.

TER: You mentioned Southwestern. What’s the long-term driver here?

RR: Transition to liquids and how successful it will be.

TER: Is there any news on the company’s new stealth play?

RR: Not yet, but we’re expecting it in the third quarter.

TER: You also threw in a small-cap, Endeavour International. Your target price implies a 50% upside. Are there any misconceptions about the risk in this play?

RR: Well, yeah, we think so. We think that the production of the company from its discovered projects alone could be up seven- or eight-fold in the next two years. But the asset base is in the U.K., and the market for small-cap reasons and international-asset reasons has chosen not to give it the appropriate credit. It’s also pursuing a central-Montana heat oil shale play and an Alabama shale play that the company believes looks like the Marcellus. So, yes, to us the risk/reward profile is very attractive given the material development-driven growth and a domestic program that could be a game changer with very minimal capital required.

TER: At current levels, do you think of Endeavour as being value priced?

RR: Yes, very much so.

TER: Okay, so those are your four favorite plays. Did you recommend any others?

RR: No, these are our top four names to think about along with a lot of different things that can happen in the sector at any given day, but we are focused on these four.

TER: I enjoyed meeting you very much.

RR: Thank you.

Rehan Rashid is managing director and head of energy and natural resources research at FBR Capital Markets. He joined FBR in September 1998 as a vice president, covering the oil and gas E&P sector and most recently initiated coverage of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector. Prior to joining FBR, he was an associate analyst at PaineWebber, covering E&P and spent two years at Jefferies Inc. He received his BS in accounting and an MBA in finance and accounting from the University of Houston.

Books that should be read before starting a Ph.D. in economics

Suppose a young person is going to start a Ph.D. in economics. What essential readings would you recommend prior to this?

In my opinion, the Ph.D. in economics involves a heavy emphasis on tools. But the story isn’t told, about why we are building these tools. The intuition isn’t built, about the world out there that we seek to model. I always joke that economics students who are clueless about reality are like a child studying projectile motion without having ever thrown something into the air.

So I thought it’s useful to pick a set of books that touch on the great themes of the world, often going into troublesome terrain that the models aren’t very good at, so as to lay a foundation of background knowledge and historical knowledge which can pave the way to usefully assimilating what’s taught in the economics Ph.D.

Here’s my compact checklist of books worth reading. Please do suggest books, and disagree with this list, in the comments to this post.

  1. Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics of growth and prosperity by William J. Baumol, Robert E. Litan and Carl J. Schramm.
  2. A splendid exchange: How trade shaped the world by William J. Bernstein.
  3. The elusive quest for growth by William Russell Easterly.
  4. Invisible engines: How software platforms drive innovation and transform industries by David S. Evans, Andrei Hagiu and Richard Schmalensee.
  5. Capitalism and freedom by Milton Friedman.
  6. The great crash of 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith.
  7. The age of uncertainty by John Kenneth Galbraith.
  8. Exit, voice, loyalty by Albert O. Hirschman
  9. More money than God: Hedge funds and the making of a new elite by Sebastian Mallaby.
  10. Reinventing the bazaar: A natural history of markets by John McMillan.
  11. Readings in applied microeconomics: The power of the market edited by Craig Newmark.
  12. From the corn laws to free trade: Interests, ideas and institutions in historical perspective by Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey.
  13. Seeing like a State by James C. Scott.
  14. The company of strangers by Paul Seabright.
  15. Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy by Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts

Economic Events on May 18, 2011

The Mortgage Bankers’ Association purchase index was released at 7:00 AM EDT, and there was a week to week decrease of 3.2% in the Purchase Index and a week to week increase of 13.2% in the Refinance Index.

At 10:30 AM EDT, the weekly Energy Information Administration Petroleum Status Report will be released, giving investors an update on oil inventories in the United States.

At 2:00 PM EDT, the FOMC Meeting Minutes will be released, which will provide insight into how the Federal Reserve board governors and bank presidents view the economy.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Certainty and Promises

Why is this even being debated?

A split among economists over whether a debt ceiling vote should be tied to spending cuts highlights the risk of overconfidence, despite a consensus opinion in the latest Journal survey that the ceiling will be raised before an August deadline.

I’m not sure how to mention this, but the debt ceiling is a very effective way of ensuring spending cuts. See, the promises of future spending cuts are simply words. Words that can be changed, ignored, or overruled. The debt ceiling, on the other hand, is pretty certain. Once the ceiling is hit, no more debt can be taken on.
So, the easiest thing to do to cut spending is to simply vote no when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling. Congress will be forced to cut spending, period. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Incidentally, failing to raise the debt ceiling will not, as has been claimed, cause or necessitate a default. Default is tied to debt payments, not revenue. A business doesn’t go into default if its revenue declines from May to June; it defaults when it fails to pay its debt.
Also, this current level of spending is unsustainable. There will be cuts eventually. We may as well get them over with.

A new low for Indian economic policy

Strange things in the appointments process:

John Doody: Top 10 Gold Plays Revealed

John Doody Production stage, location and dividend possibilities separate top mining and royalty stocks from the rest of the heap. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, Gold Stock Analyst (GSA) Newsletter Writer John Doody reveals a few of his top 10 stocks and what diversifying your gold portfolio really means.

Companies Mentioned: AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. Barrick Gold Corp. Equinox Minerals Ltd. Gold Fields Ltd. Gold Resource Corporation Goldcorp Inc. Hochschild Mining Kinross Gold Corp. Lake Shore Gold Corp. New Gold Inc. Newmont Mining Corp. NovaGold Resources Inc. US Gold Yamana Gold Inc.

The Gold Report: What are some of your strategies for picking stellar gold stocks and limiting risk?

John Doody: We cover 70 mining and royalty stocks. In the selection process, we reduce it to our top 10. It’s an ideal number because if one stock falls by 50% in value, it only affects your portfolio by 5% total. If a couple of stocks double or triple, they can really pull up the whole portfolio. If someone argues for investing in 8 or 12 stocks, we wouldn’t argue with that. But I see too many people at gold shows who have one or two and think they are diversified. They aren’t. Too many others have 20 or more, which is too many to follow and too many to have outstanding portfolio returns.

Our premise is that the market is inefficient and doesn’t value all 70 stocks we cover appropriately all the time. Since an ounce is an ounce is an ounce, GSA’s metrics can show which companies are undervalued and which ones are overvalued. These are our market capitalization per ounce numbers, market capitalization meaning shares times price. What’s the market capitalization of an ounce of reserves? What’s the market capitalization of an ounce of production? That’s the initial filter.

We look at a whole range of factors and ask the big questions. Is it a producer or is it just getting started? Where are the mines located? Are they in politically safe areas or are they risky locations? Are they open-pit mines primarily or underground mines? What’s the cost to produce an ounce? What’s the operating cash flow from the mines?

We only look at producers or near-producers. No exploration stocks, because there is no data. Some of these exploration companies do mature and get our coverage later on.

We build our Top 10 portfolio based upon integrating all of these factors and don’t get over-weighted in one sector or the other. For example, we have one silver stock in the portfolio. And, I’ve always felt silver is a derivative of gold. As gold goes up, silver will come along. But our real focus is on gold.

TGR: Of those Top 10 stocks, how many of those projects have you visited?

JD: About half. A lot of them have a whole bunch of projects, such as Goldcorp Inc. (TSX:G; NYSE:GG). I’ve been to two or three of their mines. But, others only have one.

TGR: Is it correct that you lean more toward mid-tier producers than you do near-term producers?

JD: Yes. We want data to analyze. With our track record of an average 43% gain per year over the last 10 years, we don’t have to go down the risk spectrum into exploration stories. When analyzing 70 stocks, we find undervalued situations. By looking at companies that are in production, we eliminate the risk of drill holes coming up dry or running into a permit problem that you didn’t expect, or some type of environmental issue.

TGR: Are you talking to managers of these companies on a fairly frequent basis?

JD: We’re on all the analyst calls of the Top 10 companies, as well as others we’re following. We’re always looking in the bullpen for who could be the next for the Top 10.

TGR: Mexico’s Central Bank bought 100 tons or about US$4.6B worth of gold in February and March. Do you believe this will trigger another round of gold buying by Central Banks?

JD: We have had ongoing buying. Russia bought at the same time.

TGR: Is this part of a growing trend?

JD: I think so. Everyone, including Central Banks wants to get away from the dollar because it is sinking. There’s not going to be any change in interest rate policy until after the next election, in my opinion. President Obama wants to get reelected and the last thing he needs is higher interest rates, which would worsen the unemployment situation. I think Chairman Bernanke, who’s an expert on The Great Depression, knows that the Fed screwed up in the last Great Depression when it started raising rates in the mid-1930s and tightening the credit standards for bank loans. That had the effect of slowing down the economy, causing a double dip. Bernanke’s not going to do anything to jeopardize this recovery.

A true recovery requires a lot more than one data point so the recent good U.S. job report hasn’t turned the tide for the dollar. Countries are looking to diversify reserves. The big one is China. What will China do? China is already the largest consumer and producer of gold. It produced approximately 11 million ounces (Moz.) from its own mines last year and had to import another 8 Moz. to fill demand. India’s pretty much in the same boat, but doesn’t have any gold mines. Everything has to be imported. The issue in both nations, as in the U.S. and Europe, is the real interest rate. Both China and India currently have real interest rates of negative 3% to 4%. China and India are not well banked, so their people save their money in gold.

The real interest rate is the risk-free return from short-term Treasuries or savings deposits, adjusted for inflation. When the real interest rate is negative, as in the 1970s and 2000s, cash loses purchasing power. That’s what drives gold. It can protect against purchasing power loss. That’s the single most important factor. Everything else is just noise.

TGR: Recently, Barrick Gold Corp. (TSX:ABX; NYSE:ABX) paid US$7.3B for Equinox Minerals Ltd. (TSX:EQN; ASX:EQN), which is primarily a copper producer. Do you expect other large gold companies to follow suit and diversify into other mine commodities?

JD: I don’t. I think that people will look at what happened at Barrick—the stock fell 10%. The gold miners like byproduct credits. It has become fashionable to report cash costs per ounce of gold net of byproduct credits.

But the market doesn’t like it if you’ve got too much byproduct. In other words, if you were half copper and half gold, the market wouldn’t give you a premium for your gold production. For example, one of the companies we like is New Gold Inc. (TSX:NGD; NYSE.A:NGD). They’re basically a gold company now, with three gold mines, although they do have a small copper byproduct. But they have two big copper projects coming online that are fully financed. Their copper byproduct is going to be a big number for them. They recently bought a pure gold site that they’re going to develop to produce 200 Koz. to 400 Koz. of gold a year and dilute their cooper. They want the copper to lower their cash cost to produce gold. But they don’t want too much because they’ll lose their gold premium in the stock price.

I think you really have to look at what the mix of copper is going to be in the Barrick portfolio to see if they’ve gone overboard on this or not. When Pascua-Lama and some other sites come on board, maybe it will make sense.

TGR: Isn’t all this based on the copper price?

JD: There’s no question the market didn’t like it because they knocked 10% off of Barrick’s price right away. It’s a little puzzling to me because Barrick already has a big copper-gold project in its pipeline. That’s Donlin Creek, which they own with NovaGold Resources Inc. (TSX:NG; NYSE.A:NG). It has a big copper byproduct. I think buying Equinox probably pushes back the development of Donlin Creek.

TGR: What was the last time Barrick was in your Top 10?

JD: Probably back in the 1990s.

TGR: So even when they bought out their hedge book, you didn’t take another look at it?

JD: No. It didn’t make them undervalued and that’s what we look for. The most recent big miner member, but not now in the Top 10, was Newmont Mining Corp. (NYSE:NEM). Newmont’s been purer. It never really was a hedger. It’s been pure gold and more focused on the metal.

TGR: With spot gold about US$1,500/oz., why are the stock prices of the major gold producers continuing to languish?

JD: It’s due to a variety of factors. Two majors—AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. (NYSE:AU; JSE:ANG; ASX:AGG; LSE:AGD) and Gold Fields Ltd. (NYSE:GFI)—are in South Africa and run the risk of their mines being totally nationalized. I don’t want that risk. I assume other people don’t want it either. We’ve seen both Anglo and Gold Fields trying to diversify out of South Africa. But they have to get permission from the South African Central Bank to do much. That means they’re not going to be able to split the companies into a South African part and a non-South African part, which would probably be good for the stocks.

The second reason is that gold producers have had rising cash costs, although some of it’s not their fault. Canada’s a great place to have a mine, but the Canadian dollar has been very strong. When you translate your Canadian dollar cash cost back into U.S. dollars, cash costs are higher than before. A lot of the mines are struggling with rising cash costs, which puts a greater emphasis on byproducts, but most Canadian mines don’t have the luxury of a copper byproduct.

And, the third reason is growth. There hasn’t been demonstrated growth from a number of the majors. The growth companies have been the next tier down. Goldcorp and Kinross Gold Corp. (TSX:K; NYSE:KGC) show good growth. Yamana Gold Inc. (TSX:YRI; NYSE:AUY; LSE:YAU) too, but a little further down. So, when you get to 7 Moz./year at Barrick, it’s really tough. In order to produce 7 Moz., you’ve got to find 10 Moz. of new reserves due to recovery losses. That’s basically two world-class mines a year. It’s not sustainable. Newmont is now talking about growing from 5 Moz./year to 7 Moz./year. But that’s going to take a couple of years. You can get growth as you go down to the smaller companies because of the smaller scale. I think that’s what investors are seeking.

I look for a combination of growth and yield. I want the company to do something that competes against the Gold ETF (or exchange-traded fund), which is a barren asset with no yield. Dividends open up a whole new class of investors to gold. Pension funds typically cannot buy a stock that doesn’t have a dividend. Increasingly, the miners are coming to the realization that they need to pay a dividend.

TGR: Is that really providing the best return for investors?

JD: I think dividends are increasingly important to investors. A dividend-paying gold miner tends to trade at a price that gives a 1% yield, in a range from .5% to 1.5%. That’s a growth stock yield found with tech stocks. That kind of yield is pretty attractive. Newmont, for example, increased its dividend and said it was linking it to the gold price and the stock rose. When they set the new yield, it was about 2%. Then the stock rose. The effective yield dropped to 1.7% or 1.8%. I think that was a good move on Newmont’s part.

TGR: The gold price recently dropped by US$100/oz. to under $1,500/oz. Is this a sentiment-driven drop or is something else at play?

JD: First of all, the drop is trivial. The US$100/oz. is a big number, but is 5.8% a big drop? No. That’s the same as a $10.00 stock’s price falling $0.58. Insignificant. Since the bull market low in October 2008, we’ve had five gold price drops of greater than 5.8%, from 8.5% to 14.7%. Bull market pullbacks are normal and many would say healthy. The underlying force driving gold price is the real interest rate. It’s what’s driving this market. People are trying to protect their wealth whether it’s here, China or India.

Actually, if there was a relation or single cause of the $100 drop, I think it was the European Central Bank (ECB) deciding not to raise rates a couple of days ago. Everybody thought the euro was going to get a rate bump up, and all the hedge funds had bought euro in advance to profit. Then when ECB said it wasn’t going to raise interest rates because the economy was too weak, everybody pulled out of the euro and went back to the dollar. Gold and the dollar are negatively correlated, so when one rises, the other usually falls.

TGR: How big a drop in the price of gold would cause you concern?

JD: In order to get to its 50-day moving average, a key technical benchmark, it would have to fall to around US$1,340. From the US$1,560 high; it would have to fall by US$230, but it didn’t fall half of that. Other people say a bear market begins when you fall 20%. That would mean it would have to fall more than 300 points.

TGR: Are there some companies with more direct exposure to gold than others?

JD: We like companies with low cash costs. One of the Top 10 is a company with a US$1.5B market cap and a philosophy of paying out one-third of its earnings in dividends. But, it doesn’t trade in Canada because it doesn’t have an NI 43-101 report yet. Gold Resource Corp. (OTCBB:GORO; Fkft:GIH) is ramping up production in Mexico. The company has been paying dividends since last August. One of the company’s philosophies is to pay out a third of its cash-flow in dividends. The cash cost is zero so the company has a big cash flow. It is a poly-metallic project that produces gold and silver, which is reported as gold-equivalent. It also produces copper, lead and zinc. The byproduct cash credit is about $250/ton, so their gold and silver is effectively free. It’s a very rich deposit south of Mexico City in the state of Oaxaca.

TGR: Why don’t they do an NI 43-101 report?

JD: The two brothers who started the company already had built and either depleted or sold six producing mines in the U.S. They founded U.S. Gold (TSX:UXG; NYSE:UXG). Their philosophy was to get this site into production fast. Doing an NI 43-101 would take time and they didn’t need any bank financing. Hochschild, the big Peruvian mining company, invested US$65M, which built the mine and mill. Hochschild Mining (LSE:HOC) owns 27% of the company. It also invested early in Lake Shore Gold Corp. (TSX:LSG), a Canadian company. It is telling that when Hochschild needed some money to build at some of its own mines, it sold Lakeshore, but kept Gold Resources.

TGR: Let’s talk about your newsletter The Gold Stock Analyst, which is the only audited gold newsletter. How long has it been audited and how does that work?

JD: Our results have been audited for the last 10 years. We hire an independent firm that specializes in auditing investment returns similar to paying an independent accounting firm to audit your books. Every trade we make is reported in the newsletter. There aren’t that many trades. We have made one sell and one buy so far this year. Last year, I think we made two buys and two sells. It’s only 10 stocks, so it’s fairly easy to track.

Everyone in the investment management business is basically audited one way or another. Mutual funds are audited. Hedge funds are audited. Investment advisors are audited. It is how you prove to clients that your picks and results are good. But In the newsletter business, no other newsletter in any field is audited. And, it’s amazing that people are willing to buy a newsletter and commit their investment funds based upon a track record they don’t even know. They’re basically buying a story.

TGR: Any parting wisdom for gold investors?

JD: I think we touched on the two key things. One is diversification across different sectors of the gold market. Owning 10 exploration stocks is not diversification and you’ve got to be in politically safe areas. The other part is the macroeconomic picture. What’s driving gold? It’s the real interest rate. Focus on that. If risk-free returns are negative after inflation (and it’s now negative worldwide), then you’ve got the driver around the world for higher gold prices. The gold market prices may be set in London and Chicago, but the demand—the end buyer—is all around the world. Half of them are in Asia and lots are in the Middle East. A smaller percentage than one might expect is comprised of end buyers in the U.S. and Europe.

TGR: Thank you for your time.

An economics professor for almost two decades, John Doody became interested in gold due to an innate distrust of politicians. In order to serve those that elected them, politicians always try to get nine slices out of an eight-slice pizza. How do they do this? They debase the currency via inflationary economic policies. Success with his method of finding undervalued gold mining stocks led Doody to leave teaching and start the Gold Stock Analyst newsletter late in 1994. The newsletter covers only producers or near-producers that have an independent feasibility study validating their reserves are economical to produce. In the 10 year ending 12/31/2010, GSA’s audited returns were an average gain of 43% per year.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Economic Events on May 17, 2011

At 7:45 AM EDT, the weekly ICSC-Goldman Store Sales report will be released, giving an update on the health of the consumer through this analysis of retail sales.

At 8:30 AM EDT, the Housing Starts report for April will be released.  The consensus is that construction on 570,000 new homes were started last month, which would be an increase of 21,000 from the previous month.

At 8:55 AM EDT, the weekly Redbook report will be released, giving us more information about consumer spending.

At 9:15 AM EDT, the Industrial Production report for April will be released.  The consensus is that there will be an increase 0f 0.4% in production and an increase of 0.6% in industrial capacity utilization.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Paging Henry George

One of those news items I should have noted already.  PBT points out that one of the city of Pittsburgh’s property tax abatement is drawing to a close.  The article is talking about the LERTA program which is a state statute that allows municipalities to exempt taxes on commercial real estate in a designated district from taxes on a depreciating scale and in particular the district defined Downtown.  As the article points out, many think the program has had an impact improving the residential demand Downtown.

The LERTA is actually just one tax abatement program impacting some city neighborhoods.  There exists a separate program that abates the tax on investments in residential investment in 28 city of Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

Want to make a real impact on the future growth of Pittsburgh? There is something we almost have to try at some point. My point a few years ago was to make the city’s tax abatement universal!

There is no real reason not to.  The argument against expanding it city-wide is that the city might forgo some new incremental tax revenues on new residential investment going on in the non-tax-abated neighborhoods.  Guess what?  The level of non-subsidized residential construction within the city of Pittsburgh is about as low as it can get.  In fact, most new housing in the City in the last decade have come entirely from Summerset and all the highly subsidized housing stock Downtown. That’s it pretty much.  I am not sure we have any more slag heaps needing redevelopment, and there isn’t much new money for more condo subsidization, so what does the future hold for the future of housing in Pittsburgh? Without any incremental jumps in property tax in the pipeline the cost of expanding the abatement program across the city are limited.  Yet the benefits could be spurring a new level of investment in residential construction or improvements that really are key to ever get the city of Pittsburgh population decline to itself abate.

To abate, or not to abate?  It all depends what you want to abate.

Philly’s tax abatement program has been credited with a revival in residential housing in Philadelphia and the census shows that Philadelphia’s population trend has literally reversed over the last decade.  At the same time Pittsburgh’s population continues to drop rapidly.  The presence of children is a decent proxy for future household population in the City of Pittsburgh, and the trend there is worse than the overall population trend.  Bottom line, if the city does not build out a housing stock attractive to new families then there is no reason to think the city’s population trend will reverse any time soon.

There has never been a place that has less to lose and more to gain from an omnibus tax abatement on new residential real estate investments than Pittsburgh.

OK, maybe we do have some other slag heaps out there to redevelop… but I at least am unaware of any bold initiative out there to repeat any time soon what was done with Summerset.