Economic Events on May 5, 2011

The Monster Employment Index for April was released today, and the index moved up 9 points to a value of 145, which is 9% higher than last April’s value.

The monthly Chain Store Sales report will be released today.  This report on sales in chain stores gives a look at the health of stores that make up about 10% of all retail sales.

At 8:30 AM EDT, the U.S. government will release its weekly Jobless Claims report.  The consensus is that there were 410,000 new jobless claims last week, which would would be 19,000 less than the unexpectedly high number released last week.

Also at 8:30 AM EST, the Productivity and Costs report for the first quarter of 2011 will be released.  The consensus is that non-farm productivity increased by 1.3% in the last quarter and labor unit costs increased 0.8%.

At 9:30 AM EDT, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will give a speech to the Chicago Fed’s Annual Conference on Bank Structure and Competition.

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 10:30 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.

Producing more than you consume

“All investments are made with surplus value (some of which has been borrowed to be invested), which has been netted out of the flow of value by those who produce more than they consume. This stock of value is commonly known as wealth. But governments and borrowers are consuming more than they produce, and as such are consuming from this wealth accrued by others.”

Part of the problem is that those who produce more than they consume stupidly lend to those who consume more than they produce. If the lenders only lent to those legitimately aiming to increase value by starting/expanding businesses (real wealth creation) would we be in the problem we are?
However, few can directly lend to productive members of society. That is the function performed by bankers as they are supposed to intermediate between lender and borrower, doing the checks on the borrower the lender does not have the skills or time to do.
However, the banks haven’t been productively lending as proven by Money Morning who show, as an example, an Australian bank (ANZ) is currently lending 59% into the residential mortgage market compared to 25% in 1978, when they were lending a far bigger proportion to wealth creating business. As Money Morning says:
“In 1978, total lending to the business sector made up over half of all the bank’s lending. Yet today it’s a pathetic 17%. … The result is less credit flows through to business, including entrepreneurial business. It means just as private enterprise can be crowded out by government spending, private enterprise can be crowded out by a misallocation of resources by retail banks.”

Geordie Mark: Big Nuclear Future on Horizon

Geordie Mark Japan’s nuclear catastrophe sent shock waves through the uranium market, but in this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Haywood Securities Analyst Geordie Mark explains why the disaster in Japan isn’t the end for uranium miners.

Companies Mentioned: AREVA Bannerman Resources Ltd. Cameco Corp. Denison Mines Corp. Extract Resources Ltd. Hathor Exploration Ltd. Kalahari Minerals plc Mega Uranium Ltd. Rio Tinto Strateco Resources Inc. Terra Ventures Inc. Ur-Energy Inc. Uranerz Energy Corp. Uranium Energy Corp Uranium One Inc.

The Energy Report: Geordie, take us through what it was like on March 11 once you learned that Japan’s nuclear reactors had suffered severe damage in an earthquake and subsequent tsunami.

Geordie Mark: We were all taken aback by the scale of the natural disaster, of which the significance of the event only really translated over the weekend as more data started to become available. The shock of the event hit the markets the next week with uranium stocks taking a significant beating.

TER: Was it more significant than the downturn in late 2008?

GM: Definitely. The results over the entire week were far sharper and more emotion driven than based on tangible knowledge of the events, which are still slowly coming to light. We still don’t know everything that has happened at the reactors. We probably won’t for quite a while. Those tangible effects are still going to come out. The market reacted emotionally and moved out of the sector in a big way. In terms of magnitude and timeframe, we believe that it was greater than what we saw in 2008.

TER: Did you have to revise a number of your research reports on uranium companies you cover immediately?

GM: We were waiting to find out more information before we reached a more-definitive conclusion about how the events would affect the sector on a short- and long-term basis. We certainly needed more information. Since then, we have revised some of our expectations and our supply/demand scenarios.

TER: Will the impact of Japan’s nuclear problems continue to lower uranium prices? Or will the upward price trend that started in the second half of 2010 continue once the market suffers some memory loss?

GM: That’s a good question. I think this sector will continue to go forward still. There are a number of reactors under construction today—62 or more. That represents appreciable growth, about 15%.

We’ve lost some demand, particularly from Japan and certainly from the reactors in Germany that were shut down in response to the accident in Japan. That loss in near-term demand is somewhat offset of by the loss of production out of the Rio Tinto’s (NYSE:RIO; ASX:RIO) Ranger Mine (69% Rio Tinto) in Australia and some shortfalls from of the company’s Rössing Mine in Namibia. That leads us to believe that there’s pricing protection based on supply/demand fundamentals.

TER: So far this year, the long-term price for uranium is up about 11%. When you talked to The Energy Report in October 2010, you said you expected some price pressure in uranium in 2012 and 2013. Has that outlook changed?

GM: No, that’s an area that is still very much in play. Those are very large drivers. We expect to see a number of reactors remain offline in Japan, but the pricing pressure is still there. The supply/demand scenario is largely the same. We’ve lost some demand on the short end of the curve, but we also lost some production. We probably will lose a little expected future supply from the advanced exploration-stage companies that we thought might go into production after 2013. I think there may be project development delays now due to greater regulatory oversight in response to the events in Japan. However, it’s still very much the same equation that we saw 10 months ago.

TER: Does that mean that you’re going to increase the discount rate on some of those juniors?

GM: I think we’ll leave them as they are. The discount rate in the juniors still builds in a certain amount of risk depending on the development and permitting stage of the individual projects. Modification of expected production timelines and dilution expectations in our valuation account for more protracted periods of stakeholder interaction, project scrutiny and regulatory oversight.

TER: The Ranger Mine is being shut down due to fear that severe rainfall could push radioactive water over the edge of a tailings dam and into a World Heritage site in Australia’s Northern Territory. Do you see this as a first step that could lead to a push for nationwide ban on uranium mining in Australia?

GM: Activist groups have already called for bans on uranium mining. It is too early to say what the response will be.

TER: Do you have an update on what is happening at the Ranger Mine now?

GM: It extended its shutdown period to the end of July.

TER: Do you have any Buy ratings on juniors with projects in Australia?

GM: Sure we do. We cover Mega Uranium Ltd. (TSX:MGA), which has a project in Lake Maitland. It’s in the advanced permitting-application phase. It’s attempting to win a mine permit for production around 2013 or so. This would be a small-scale mine at about 1.65 million pounds (Mlb.) per year. Mega has an $0.80 price target.

TER: What would the company’s costs be per pound?

GM: We expect that cash costs would be somewhere in the mid-$20/lb. range.

TER: What sort of uranium price would Mega need to have a profitable operation?

GM: If long-term prices hold where they are—just north of $70/lb.—it would make an attractive proposition.

TER: Hathor Exploration Ltd. (TSX.V:HAT), which is a junior operating in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin, has launched a bid to acquire Terra Ventures Inc. (TSX.V:TAS). If the deal goes through, Hathor would realize full ownership of the Roughrider deposit. Is Hathor’s bid to acquire Terra a sign that more consolidation is on the way?

GM: It’s a strategic move. Given market sentiment about the sector and the lows we have seen, we could see more opportunities to consolidate further for companies that have good assets or strategic asset portfolios.

TER: Ok. What are some companies you believe could be targets in a consolidation phase?

GM: In the U.S., in-situ recovery (ISR) companies, such as Uranium Energy Corp (NYSE.A:UEC), Uranerz Energy Corp. (TSX:URZ; NYSE.A:URZ), and Ur-Energy Inc. (NYSE.A:URG; TSX:URE) are all either in production or in advanced stages of permitting. They could be attractive takeout targets for broader-scale consolidation within the ISR space.

Strateco Resources Inc. (TSX:RSC) potentially could be a good acquisition for a high-grade uranium resource over 20 Mlb. Extract Resources Ltd. (TSX:EXT; ASX:EXT) and Bannerman Resources Ltd. (TSX:BAN; ASX:BMN) also represent potential targets for consolidation of strategic asset ownership—this point is particularly poignant for Extract Resources given the recent dialogue between Kalahari Minerals plc (LSE:KAH; NSX:KAH)—Extract’s largest shareholder and China’s state-owned China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Corporation (CGNPC).

TER: Let’s look at some of those companies a bit more closely. In a recent research report on Uranium Energy, you said you expect operating cash flow per share to jump from $0.03 in 2011 to $0.35 in 2012 and $0.70 in 2013. What’s going to propel that growth?

GM: The company started production late last year and has a great growth portfolio. It is the newest uranium producer and probably will hold that mantel for another year or more. The growth really relates to Texas operations. The Palangana ISR project is growing. The Goliad satellite ISR facility is expected to come on stream late this year or early next year. That really gives the company a good growth portfolio.

TER: It’s in a pretty safe jurisdiction as well.

GM: Yes, It’s in Texas, which is an Agreement State that streamlines licensing. The company already has a fully permitted plant. Its first project, Palangana, is fully permitted and in production. Goliad has a draft permit and is awaiting the final permit perhaps as soon as July. Political risk seems to be lower there.

TER: What are your estimated operating expenses?

GM: We say that the company’s future expected cash costs are about $26/lb. We play it conservative and will review once we see sustained output growth. Our target price is $6.30.

TER: Let’s talk about Uranerz, which is developing a project in Wyoming.

GM: Uranerz could win Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing approval for the Nichols Ranch ISR Uranium Project by early next quarter. The company is well cashed up; it has around $49 million in the bank. If it can start development by midyear, it could be in production within about 12 months. Cash costs are expected to settle somewhere in the mid- to low-$30/lb. range. We see Uranerz as the world’s next uranium producer. Our target price on Uranerz is $6.10.

TER: Ur-Energy is developing the Lost Creek project in Wyoming. How robust could it be?

GM: Ur-Energy’s projects in Great Divide Basin, Lost Creek and Lost Soldier are a little bit behind in the permitting progress compared to Uranerz. The company potentially could receive Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality permits and NRC license as early as the second half of this year and, as such, it could come into production in late 2012. Ur-Energy has a very strong technical team and an advanced development-stage asset. We have a price target of $2.

TER: Are there any other operating mines in Wyoming right now?

GM: Uranium One Inc. (TSX:UUU) is expected to be commissioning Christensen Ranch this year and Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO; NYSE:CCJ) already has a production presence in the state.

TER: This is an established district, probably the most-established uranium district in the U.S. right now, isn’t it?

GM: The state has more than 50 years of continuous uranium-production history and, by virtue of this, is placed as an established uranium-producing region.

TER: Strateco is developing the Matoush uranium project in Québec, which is a somewhat high-grade project. Why might that be a takeover target?

GM: Strateco has a handsome resource of just more than 20 Mlb. U308. The grade is just under 0.6% uranium and it’s in Québec. It has good neighbors in Cameco and AREVA (PAR:CEI). The resource has demonstrable upside potential along a long strike length and at depth. It has all the marks for growth potential. It also is a long way through permitting for its bulk-sampling underground development. We think the company could be close to winning a permit to go forward. The Matoush project is probably one of the most advanced development-stage projects held outside Cameco, Denison Mines Corp. (TSX:DML; NYSE.A:DNN) and Areva in Canada. We have a price target of $1.45.

TER: What’s the earliest it could be in production?

GM: Probably 2014 or 2015.

TER: What is the regulatory regime like in Québec? That tends to be a pretty favorable jurisdiction for mining gold and base metals. Does the same hold true for uranium mining?

GM: That remains to be tested fully. Québec has a very rich mining history, and international mining surveys place the province high in the rankings.

TER: Are there any other companies that have a takeover target on them?

GM: Extract Resources is an obvious entity out there with the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) in dialogue with the largest shareholder in Extract Resources, which is Kalahari Minerals. It’s the only asset in the uranium space that I deem to be world class and in the hands of the development-/exploration-stage company.

TER: Bannerman Resources is right in that neighborhood, too, albeit with a bit lower grade, isn’t it?

GM: That’s very true. Bannerman’s Etango project is very sensitive to the uranium price, and the company’s share price has certainly reacted that way in relation to changes in the underlying spot price. The heap-leaching potential looks very good; the tests are very reasonable. Bannerman’s Etango project is anticipated to deliver uranium at higher cash costs of around $40. However, given that this development-stage project has the potential for significant production of between 5 Mlb. and 7 Mlb., I don’t think the company can be ignored.

TER: What is your forecast for prices through the end of 2011 and into early 2012?

GM: There is room for pricing strength going forward. We forecast the price to be $67.50 for uranium spot and about $75 for uranium long term. We still see most of the action coming around 2013 to 2014. There is good fundamental support for the commodity price.

TER: Should investors get into this play now and ride it out until 2013 or 2014?

GM: Value plays do exist for those who have mid-term investment time horizons, as well as short-term time horizons as company valuations are driven around catalysts relating to production growth, permitting progress, resource expansion and discovery. We expect that a number of companies in the uranium sector will enjoy the aforementioned catalysts over the next year or so.

TER: We really appreciate you taking the time for this.

Dr. Geordie Mark, a research analyst with Haywood Securities, focuses on uranium companies involved in exploration, development and production. He joined Haywood from the junior exploration sector, where he was vice president of exploration for Cash Minerals, which concentrated on uranium and iron oxide-copper-gold targets across Canada. Prior to joining the exploration industry, Mark lectured in economic geology at Monash University, Australia and served as an industry consultant. He completed his Ph.D. in geology in 1998 at James Cook University’s Economic Geology Research Unit in Australia, specializing in aqueous geochemistry and igneous petrology applied to ore-forming systems.

Demographic patterns and structural change in North Africa and the Middle East

The political turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt that precipitated the abrupt end of decades of political dictatorships that governed the vast majority of countires in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region. The political revolution, influenced by democratic upheaval in Tunisia and Egypt, facilitated the attempts to overhaul the autocratic regimes in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Libya.

One of the most interesting and highlighting puzzles to resolves is which features contributed to the rise of democratic revolutions sweeping across the entire region. In fact, MENA region is world’s largest exporter of oil, enjoying the largest oil reserves in the world. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Libya and Kuwait constitute more than 42 percent of world oil reserves. In recent decades, MENA region experienced a growing degree of macroeconomic stability with low and stable inflation rate and steady economic growth. Large oil inflows, driven by the growing oil consumption in emerging markets such as China and India, boosted local currency appreciation and current account surpluses. The rates of growth in recent decade were remarkable, reflecting the growth of domestic demand as well as robust investment as the engine of growth. Countries in the MENA region also enjoyed favorable demographic conditions with low old-age dependency ratio and high share of working-age population, resulting in a demographic dividend which brought robust economic growth.

The indices of political change in the MENA countries prior to the outburst of the political protests in Tunisia and Egypt were nearly impossible to predict since a variety of macroeconomic, demographic and structural indicators facilitate the course of political change in developing countries, shifting from authoritarian political leadership towards a democratic political institutions with free press, free election and a vibrant civil society. Prior to the onset of the protests against authoratic governments in the MENA countries, the latter experienced benign levels of economic freedom. In the MENA region, the majority of countries experienced rampant corruption, heavily regulated labor markets, financial underdevelopment and inefficient legal systems. Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia enjoyed the highest degree of economic freedom in the region while Yemen, Syria and Algeria were already suffering from institutional paralysis and bad governance which brought these countries on the brink of failed states. If political change could be predicted on the basis of the level of overall economic freedom, Yemen, Syria, Algeria and Libya would experience the highest likelihood of political protests that would eventually lead to the political change.

Prior to the independence from France, MENA countries have been plagued by authoritarian governments given the extensive reserves of oil and natural gas. The absence of market institutions based on the rule of law under good governance and independent judicial systems eventually intensifed the rise of hybrid political regimes prone to corruption and poor governance. Even though corrupt military rule and political dicatorship precipitated the rise of the protests against authoratic rule, the pattern of structural change could be easily seen from the changing demographic landscape across the MENA region.

For most of the 20th century, countries in the MENA regions experienced rising income per capita levels. In fact, the growth of per capita incomes in North Africa surpassed the regional average given the fact that North African countries enjoyed high relative levels of income per capita at the beginning of the 20th century compared to Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, in 1913, Tunisia enjoyed higher per capita income than Mauritius. The change in the demographic structure of the population began after 1950s. In all countries of the MENA region, the fertility rate decreased substantially. In Syria, the fertility rate almost halved between 1950-1955 and 2005-2010, from 7.30 to 3.29. The same trend in the fertility rate swept across the entire region. In Libya, the fertility rate between 2005 and 2010 fell below 3 children per women while Tunisia’s fertility rate dropped below 2 children per women in the same period. The astounding drop in fertility rates strongly reflected the growth in per capita incomes which boosted domestic consumption of durable and non-durable goods. In addition, oil-exporting countries such as Libya and Bahrain have experienced a substantial increase in export earnings. Large inflow of oil earnings, in fact, unleashed the income effect, brining higher spending on education and infrastructure. The distribution of literacy rates across countries (link) shows that literacy rates in MENA regions are remarkably high. In fact, Bahrain and Turkey boast of 88 percent literacy rate. Libya remained the North African leader in literacy rate (86.8 percent), ahead of Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria which, given the fragmentation and dichotomy of the population, enjoy literacy rates below 80 percent of the total population.

Countries from the MENA region differ substantially in the demographic projections of old-age dependency ratio. The estimates by the UN suggest that by 2030, the dependency ratio in North Africa and the Middle East is expected to experience a persistent rise. In fact, under constant fertility rates, the share of the population 65+ is expected to increase by 25 percentage points in Bahrain, 24 percentage points in Libya, 23 percentage points in Tunisia, 20 percentage points in Algeria, 15 percentage points in Syria and Saudi Arabia and 14 percentage points in Egypt. In Turkey, favorable fertility assumptions predict 7 percentage point increase in old-age dependency ratio until 2030. The empirics behind the clear explanation of fertility dyanmics across the MENA region reveals a persistent shift towards rapidly aging population across the entire region. The expedience of high fertility rates boosts the demographic dividend alongside the growth in income per capita until the break-even point when the pressure of aging population raises public pension expenditure and the introduction of social security schemes. These schemes, in fact, do not pose a systemic threat to the long-term solvency of public pension system as long as high fertility rates boost stationary population growth. The remarkable decrease in the fertility rates in the MENA is partly beared by the increasing amount spent on education. For instance, Tunisia’s education spending amounted to 7.2 percent of the GDP. The ratio is higher than in many advanced countries in the world. In 2007, Italy spent 4.3 percent of GDP on education, the same ratio as Algeria in the year later. The increasing amount of education expenditure, in both absolute and relative sense, reflects robust literacy rates for middle-income countries of the MENA region. In fact, the increasing amount of education expenditures per inhabitant boosted the information awareness by driving up reading, mathematical and computer literacy. Higher literacy rates, compounded by free access to various Internet applications, could substantiate hypothetically greater awareness of the public demanding political liberties, freedom of assembly and free press.

The demographic transition in the Middle East and North Africa is remarkably uneven, reflecting the variation in income per capita across the region. One of the key drivers of the demographic adjustment is the changing immigration landscape. Traditionally, North African countries have boosted one of the highest outward migration rates, particularly into Italy and France where Muslims account for about 9 percent of the population, the highest share in Western Europe. In addition, with 2.01 children per women, France enjoys one of the highest fertility rates in Europe. A brief overview of the ethnic fertility rates in France shows that French women of the Muslim origin boost significantly higher fertility rates compared to immigrants from Western countries. For instance, the fertility rates for women of Algerian and Moroccan descent exceed the fertility rates of Spanish and Italian immigrants by almost three times. In the next decade, income per capita across the Arab world is expected to increase robustly. Higher incomes would mean a shift towards the increasing amount of expenditures on durable goods. The change in the consumption pattern would be accompanied by a robust decline in the relative amount of income spent on food and other non-durables. Hence, the assumed fertility rates would converge to the Despite the prolonged decline in fertility rates across the Arab world, the demographic transition could precipitate the subsequent decline in robust economic growth rates which exacerbate the rapid rise in per capita incomes in the MENA region.

The peculiar feature of the majority of countries within the MENA region with the exception of Turkey is the presence of natural resource barriers. The abundance of natural resources, such as oil, phosphate and natural gas, is a major constraint on the quality of public sector governance replaced by the seizure of the state by powerful political elites such as the military regime during the Mubarak rule in Egypt prior to the 2011 revolution. Unless accompanied by democratic institutions and systemic constraints on the executive power, the political revolution can eventually result in the organic evolution of the failed state with a strong persistence of the old elites pushing for the status quo to protect the privileges preserved under the old system. The Arab awakening signaled the beginning of the demographic transition with decreasing fertility rates and slowly growing old-age dependency ratios. Hence, diminishing returns to demographic dividend and the gradual relative decline of the share of the working-age population both indicate a tendency towards greater democratic governance.

Economic Events on May 4, 2011

The Mortgage Bankers’ Association purchase index was released at 7:00 AM EDT, and there was a week to week increase of 0.3% in the Purchase Index and a week to week increase of 6.0% in the Refinance Index.

The Challenger Job-Cut Report will be released at 7:30 AM EDT, providing an estimate of the number of layoffs in April.

At 8:15 AM EDT, the ADP Employment Report will be released.  Investors will be watching this number to get advance notice on the state of the job market in advance of the government’s report on Friday.

At 9:00 AM EDT, the Treasury Refunding Announcement will be released, where the U.S. Treasury states its funding needs for the next two quarters.

At 10:00 AM EDT, the ISM non-manufacturing index for April will be released.  The consensus estimate is that decreased by 0.3 points to a value of 57.0, and will continue to signal economic growth as it remains above the mid-point of 50.

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.

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

John Williams: Hyperinflation and Double-Dip Recession Ahead

John Williams Economic recovery? What economic recovery? Contrary to popular media reports, government economic reporting specialist and ShadowStats Editor John Williams reads between the government-economic-data lines. “The U.S. is really in the worst condition of any major economy or country in the world,” he says. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, John concludes the nation is in the midst of a multiple-dip recession and headed for hyperinflation.

The Gold Report: Standard & Poor’s (S&P) has given a warning to the U.S. government that it may downgrade its rating by 2013 if nothing is done to address the debt and deficit. What’s the real impact of this announcement?

John Williams: S&P is noting the U.S. government’s long-range fiscal problems. Generally, you’ll find that the accounting for unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other programs on a net-present-value (NPV) basis indicates total federal debt and obligations of about $75 trillion. That’s 15 times the gross domestic product (GDP). The debt and obligations are increasing at a pace of about $5 trillion a year, which is neither sustainable nor containable. If the U.S. was a corporation on a parallel basis, it would be headed into bankruptcy rather quickly.

There’s good reason for fear about the debt, but it would be a tremendous shock if either S&P or Moody’s Investor Service actually downgraded the U.S. sovereign-debt rating. The AAA rating on U.S. Treasuries is the benchmark for AAA, the highest rating, meaning the lowest risk of default. With U.S. Treasuries denominated in U.S. dollars and the benchmark AAA security, how can you downgrade your benchmark security? That’s a very awkward situation for rating agencies. As long as the U.S. dollar retains its reserve currency status and is able to issue debt in U.S. dollars, you’ll continue to see a triple-A rating for U.S. Treasuries. Having the U.S. Treasuries denominated in U.S. dollars means the government always can print the money it needs to pay off the securities, which means no default.

TGR: With the U.S. Treasury rated AAA, everything else is rated against that. But what if another AAA-rated entity is about to default?

JW: That’s the problem that rating agencies will have if they start playing around with the U.S. rating. But there’s virtually no risk of the U.S. defaulting on its debt as long as the debt’s denominated in dollars. Let’s say the U.S. wants to sell debt to Japan, but Japan doesn’t like the way the U.S. is running fiscal operations. It can say, “We don’t trust the U.S. dollar. We’ll lend you money, but we’ll lend it in yen.” Then, the U.S. has a real problem because it no longer has the ability to print the currency needed to pay off the debt. And if you’re looking at U.S. debt denominated in yen, most likely you would have a very different and much lower rating.

TGR: Is there a possibility that people would not buy U.S. debt unless it’s in their currency?

JW: It is possible lenders would not buy the Treasuries unless denominated in a strong and stable currency. As the USD loses its value and becomes less attractive, people will increasingly dump dollar-denominated assets and move into currencies they consider safer. And you’ll see other things; OPEC might decide it no longer wants to have oil denominated in U.S. dollars. There’s been some talk about moving it to some kind of basket of currencies—something other than the U.S. dollar, possibly including gold. This would be devastating to the U.S. consumer. You’d get a double whammy from an inflation standpoint on oil prices in the U.S. because the dollar would be shrinking in value against that basket of currencies.

TGR: Different countries are starting to discuss the creation of an alternative to the USD as reserve currency. How rapidly could an alternative currency appear?

JW: That would involve a consensus of major global trading countries; but just how that would break remains to be seen. Let’s say OPEC decides it no longer wants to accept dollars for oil. Instead, it wants to be paid in yen. It’s done. It’s not a matter of creating a new currency—it’s a matter of how things get shifted around.

TGR: What other commodities or monetary issues would that create?

JW: Again, the dollar’s weakness is doubly inflationary. It is the biggest factor behind the ongoing rise in oil prices. Let’s say you’re a Japanese oil purchaser. Oil, effectively, is purchased at a discount in a yen-based environment due to the dollar’s weakness. Usually, the market doesn’t let such advantages last very long. As the dollar weakens, you see upside pressure on oil prices. If, hypothetically, you’re pricing oil in yen, there’s no reason for anybody to hold the USD. The dollar would sell off more rapidly against the yen and oil inflation would be even higher in a dollar-denominated environment.

TGR: You’ve mentioned that hyperinflation will happen as soon as 2014. If that is true, wouldn’t OPEC want to shift off dollar pricing as quickly as possible?

JW: From a purely financial standpoint, that would make sense. Other factors are at play, though, including political, military and unstable times in both North Africa and the Middle East. Those who are able to get out of dollars, I think, will do so rapidly and as smoothly as possible.

TGR: And how will they do that?

JW: They will sell their dollar-denominated assets. They will convert dollars to other currencies. They will buy gold. Generally, they will dump whatever they hold in dollars and sell the dollar-denominated assets they don’t want. There’s a market for them; it’s just a matter of pricing. As the pressure mounts to get out of the USD, the pricing of dollar-denominated assets will fall, which in turn would intensify that selling. The dollar selling will intensify domestic U.S. inflation, which is one factor that picks up and feeds off itself and will help to trigger the hyperinflation.

TGR: The U.S., even in recession, is still the largest consuming economy. If the U.S. continues in, or goes into a deeper, recession, doesn’t that impact the rest of the world?

JW: If the U.S. is in a severe recession, it will have a significant negative economic impact on the global economy. That doesn’t necessarily affect the relative values of other currencies to the USD. If you look at the dollar against the stronger currencies, a wide variety of factors are in effect—including relative economic strength. The U.S. is probably going to have an economy as bad as any major country will have, with higher relative inflation. The weaker the relative economy and the stronger the relative inflation, the weaker will be the dollar. Relative to fiscal stability, the worse the fiscal circumstance in the U.S., the weaker is the dollar. Relative to trade balance, the bigger the trade deficit is, the weaker the currency. As to interest rates, the lower the relative interest rates in the U.S., the weaker will be the dollar.

Part of the weakness in the dollar now is due to the way the world views what’s happening in Washington and the ability of the government to control itself. That’s a factor that may have forced S&P to make a comment. So, even having a weaker economy in Europe would not necessarily lead to relative dollar strength.

TGR: If the U.S. experiences a continued, or even greater, recession, doesn’t that impact spill over into Canada?

JW: The Canadian economy is closely tied to the U.S. economy, and bad times here will be reflected in bad times in Canada. However, I’m not looking for a hyperinflation in Canada. Its currency will tend to remain relatively stronger than the U.S. dollar. Canada is more fiscally sound; it generally has a better trade picture and has a lot of natural resources. Keep in mind that economic times tend to get addressed by private industry’s creativity and, thus, new markets can be developed. For instance, you’re already seeing significant shifts of lumber sales to China instead of to the U.S.

TGR: What about the effect on other countries?

JW: The world economy is going to have a difficult time. You do have ups and downs in the domestic, as well as the global, economy. People survive that. They find ways of getting around problems if a market is cut off or suffers. I view most of the factors in Canada, Australia and Switzerland as being much stronger than in the U.S. Even when you look at the euro and the pound, they’re generally stronger than in the U.S. Japan is dealing with the financial impacts of the earthquake. There’s going to be a lot of rebuilding there. But, generally, it’s a more stable economy with better fiscal and trade pictures. I would look for the yen to continue to be stronger. Shy of any short-term gyrations, the U.S. is really in the worst condition of any major economy and any major country in the world and, therefore, in a weaker currency circumstance.

TGR: Then why are media analysts talking about the U.S. being in a recovery?

JW: You’re not getting a fair analysis. There’s nothing new about that. No one in the popular media predicted the recession that was clearly coming upon us, and the downturn wasn’t even recognized until well after the average guy on Main Street knew things were getting bad. We have some particularly poor-quality economic reporting right now. The economy has not been as strong as it advertised. Yes, there has been some upside bouncing in certain areas, but it’s largely tied to short-lived stimulus factors.

Let’s look at payroll numbers and the way those are estimated. In normal economic times, seasonal factors and seasonal adjustments are stable and meaningful. What’s happened is that the downturn has been so severe and protracted it has completely skewed the seasonal-adjustment process. It’s no longer meaningful, nor are estimates of monthly changes in many series. The markets are flying blind—it’s unprecedented, in terms of modern reporting.

Are we really seeing a surge in retail sales? If so, you should be seeing growth in consumer income or consumer borrowing—but we’re not seeing that. The consumer is strapped. An average consumer’s income cannot keep up with inflation. The recent credit crisis also constrained consumer credit. Without significant growth in credit or a big pick-up in consumer income, there’s no way the consumer can sustain positive economic growth or personal consumption, which is more than 70% of the GDP. So, you haven’t started to see a shift in the underlying fundamentals that would support stronger economic activity. That’s why you’re not going to have a recovery; in fact, it’s beginning to turn down again as shown in the housing sales volume numbers, which are down 75% from where it was in normal times.

TGR: But we were in a housing boom. Doesn’t that make those numbers reasonable?

JW: Housing starts have never been this low. Right now, they are running around 500,000 a year. We’re at the lowest levels since World War II—down 75% from 2006—and it’s getting worse. I mean the bottom bouncing has turned down again. We’re already seeing a second dip in the housing industry. There’s been no recovery there.

In March, all the gain in retail sales was in inflation. Retail sales are turning down. You’re going to see a weaker GDP number for Q111. The GDP number is probably the most valueless of the major series put out; but, as the press will have to report, growth will drop from 3.1% in Q410 to something like 1.7% in Q111.

TGR: You’ve stated that the most significant factors driving the inflation rate are currency- and commodity-price distortions—not economic recovery. Why is that distinction important?

JW: The popular media have stated that the only time you have to worry about inflation is when you have a strong economy, and that a strong economy drives inflation. There’s such a thing as healthy inflation when it comes from a strong economy. I would much rather be in an economy that’s overheating with too much demand and prices that rise. That’s a relatively healthy inflation. Today, the weak dollar has spiked oil prices. Higher oil prices are driving gasoline prices higher—the average person is paying a lot more per gallon of gas. For those who can’t make ends meet, they cut back in other areas. The inflation of Q410, which is now running at an annualized pace of 6%, was mostly tied to the prices of gasoline and food.

You also have higher food prices. It’s not due to stronger food or gasoline demand—it’s due to monetary distortions. Unemployment is still high, even if you believe the numbers. I’ll contend the economy really isn’t recovering. At the same time, you’re seeing a big increase in inflation that’s killing the average guy.

TGR: Why isn’t there more pressure on the U.S. government to reduce the debt deficit?

JW: When you get into areas like debt and deficit, it’s a little difficult to understand. The average person, though, should be feeling enough financial pain that political pressure will tend to mount before the 2012 election; but whether or not the average person will take political action remains to be seen. I don’t think you have until 2012 before this gets out of control and there’s hyperinflation. It could go past that to 2014, but we’re seeing all sorts of things happening now that are accelerating the inflation process.

TGR: Like the dollar at an all-time low.

JW: If you compare the U.S. dollar against the stronger currencies, such as the Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and Swiss franc, you’re looking at historic lows. You’re not far from historic lows in the broader dollar measure.

TGR: In your April 19 newsletter, you stated, “Though not yet commonly recognized, there is both an intensifying double-dip recession and a rapidly escalating inflation problem. Until such time as financial market expectations catch up with the underlying reality, reporting generally will continue to show higher-than-expected inflation and weaker-than-expected economic results.” What do you mean by “until such time as financial market expectations catch up with the underlying reality?”

JW: A lot of people look closely at and follow the consensus of economists, which is looking at (or at least still touting) an economic recovery with contained inflation. I’m contending that the underlying reality is a weaker economy and rising inflation. I think the expectation of rising inflation is beginning to sink in. Given another month or two, I think you’ll find all of a sudden the economists making projections will start lowering their economic forecasts. Instead of looking at half-percent growth in industrial production, they’ll be expecting it to be flat; if it comes in flat, it will be a consensus—and the markets will be pleased it wasn’t worse in consensus. But the consensus outlook will have shifted toward a more negative economic outlook.

TGR: Do you think economists will shift their outlooks before we get into hyperinflation or a depression?

JW: In terms of economists who have to answer to Wall Street, work for the government or hold an office like the Federal chairman, by and large, they’ll err on the side of being overly optimistic. People prefer good news to bad news. If Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said we were headed into a deeper recession, it would rattle the market. People on Wall Street want to have a happy sales pitch. What results may have little to do with underlying reality.

TGR: In your April 15 newsletter, you mentioned that a signal of an unfolding double-dip recession is based on the annual contraction of the M3, which was the Fed’s broadest measure of money supply until it ceased publishing it in 2006. Recent estimates show that the annual contraction of M3 went down from 4.3 in February to 3.6 in March. Is this good news?

JW: No. It doesn’t have any particular significance as a signal for the economy. You do have recessions that start without M3 going negative year over year. In the last several decades, every time the M3 went negative, there followed a recession—or an intensifying downturn—if a recession was already underway. If you tighten up liquidity, you tend to tighten up business conditions. Again, though, you’ve had recessions without those signals. When it goes positive, it does not signal an upturn in the economy. It doesn’t make any difference if it continues negative for a year or two, or if it’s negative for three months. The point is—when it turns negative, that’s the signal for the recession.

We had a signal back in December 2009, which would have indicated a downturn sometime in roughly Q310. We already were in a recession at that point. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the defining authority in timing of the U.S. business cycle, the last recession ended in June 2009. So, this current recession will be recognized as a double-dip recession. The Bureau doesn’t change its timing periods.

I’ll contend that we’re really seeing reintensification of the downturn that began in 2007. Although it’s not obvious in the headline numbers of the popular media, you’ll find that September/October 2010 is when the housing market started to turn down again. That is beginning to intensify. We’ll see how the retail sales look when they’re revised. When all the dust settles, I think you’ll see that the economy did start to turn down again in latter 2010. Somewhere in that timeframe, they’ll start counting the second or next leg of a multiple-dip recession.

TGR: Does M3 have anything to do with calculating potential inflation or hyperinflation?

JW: It does; but when you start looking at the inflation picture, you also have to consider that we are dealing with the world’s reserve currency and the volume of dollars both outside and inside the U.S. system. Right now, M3 is estimated at somewhat shy of $14 trillion. You have another $7 trillion outside the U.S., which is available for overnight liquidation and dumping into the U.S. markets. It’s not easy to measure how much is out there, but that has to be taken into account to assess the money supply related to inflation. Again, that’s where the Fed chairman’s policies come into play.

Efforts have been afoot to weaken the U.S. dollar. Usually with the weakening of the U.S. dollar, you see increased repatriation of dollars from outside the system. If everyone is happy holding the dollars, the flows can be static; but when they start shifting and the dollars are repatriated, you begin to have currency problems. That’s when you have the money supply and the inflation problems we’re beginning to see.

TGR: This has been very informative, John. Thank you for your time.

Walter J. “John” Williams has been a private consulting economist and a specialist in government economic reporting for 30 years, working with individuals and Fortune 500 companies alike. He received his AB in economics, cum laude, from Dartmouth College in 1971 and earned his MBA from Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business Administration in 1972, where he was named an Edward Tuck Scholar. John, whose early work prompted him to study economic reporting and interview key government officials involved in the process, also surveyed business economists for their thinking about the quality of government statistics. What he learned led to front-page stories in the New York Times and Investor’s Business Daily, considerable coverage in the broadcast media and a joint meeting with representatives of all of the government’s statistical agencies. Despite a number of changes to the system since those days, John says that government reporting has deteriorated sharply in the last decade or so. His analyses and commentaries, which are available on his ShadowStats website have been featured widely in the popular domestic and international media.

Silver debunking

Silver has been running hot and so has the misinformation. Some antidotes:

Sprott Begins Selling PSLV Shares Good detective work by Kid Dynamite on Sprott’s other funds selling their PSLV shares. My guess is that the funds sold their shares and then bought physical at spot, pocketing PSLV’s 17% premium

Comex Explains Large Adjustment in Silver & Gold Registered Inventories Brian O’Flanagan explains the large transfers of COMEX silver from registered to eligible.

How the COMEX Didn’t Lose its Silver Tom Szabo’s detailed coverage of the COMEX transfer issue.

Economic Events on May 3, 2011

The figures for motor vehicle sales in April will be released today.  The consensus estimate is that 9.9 million domestic autos were sold last month, which would be an increase of 200,000 from the previous month.

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

At 10:00 AM EDT, the Factory Orders report for March will be released.  The consensus is that there was an increase of 2.0% in orders from the previous month.

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

Dave in Denver - The Golden Truth?

A couple of weeks ago this blogger did a post about the University of Texas taking delivery. In it he made the following statement

“Delaware Depository also serves as one of the Comex depositories and you risk having your gold mingled with unallocated gold or “accidentally” borrowed”

To me he is saying Delaware Depository would defraud their clients by giving/lending a bullion bank the client’s allocated gold without their knowledge. I left a comment saying as such and that I thought he had stepped over the line with this.

He replied, saying I “crossed over the line by accusing me of crossing over the line”. I left another response disagreeing, but he did not allow it through. I emailed him to ask if he hadn’t got the response or had, but wasn’t going to publish it. No reply back from him.

My view of blogging is that you should be prepared to defend yourself (or admit you were wrong) if you are really after the truth. Dave obviously disagrees. Below is the response he would not publish – I’ll let you make up your mind on whether Dave is really after the Golden Truth.

“Very few people/entities can be trusted in the world of precious metals” Agreed, but I gather you don’t include Perth Mint in that :)

Your argument against DDSC is based on two red flags. First is non disclosure of insurance arrangements. Here “DDSC agrees to maintain “all risk” insurance coverage for Precious Metals stored for you.” That is a bit vague as it doesn’t say “fully” but they do say here that “All precious metal assets held at DDSC are maintained in customer-specific custody accounts, on a fully insured basis, and off of DDSC’s balance sheet.” If they aren’t fully insuring but saying they are then that is not good and a real red flag – I’m assuming you know for a fact that they don’t fully insure.

I would note that any depository of size is unable to be fully insured because insurance markets don’t have the capacity/willingness to underwrite it. That would cut in at around $1b – $2b with the cost getting prohibitive beyond that, assuming it is even available. If DDSC’s total holdings are above that you may have a point.

“DDC is a Comex depository – sorry, guilt by association and guilt by sleaze.” I think you’re second red flag of guilt by association is weak. As you say “With the sleaze and corruption embedded in our entire system, especially on Wall Street” you can’t trust Wall Street. But then you yourself “trading on Wall Street. For nine of those years, I traded junk bonds for a large bank”, so couldn’t someone just raise a similar guilt by association red flag on you? You don’t disclose that you didn’t work for Goldman? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you are guilty by association, just suggesting you put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.

“If you want to read into or infer anything from what I wrote, that’s your business” I don’t think it is just me reading that in, I think most people would. Because I think most people would read that into it that is why I think it steps over the line.

When you say “you risk having your gold mingled with unallocated gold or ‘accidentally’ borrowed” you are saying there is a reasonable possibility (ie risk) that DDSC will engage in criminal fraudulent action to comingle a client’s metal and/or lease it out. That is a pretty strong statement.

“you crossed over the line by accusing me of crossing over the line” So it is OK for you to accuse someone of being at risk of acting criminally but not OK for me to simply say I think you went too far by making that statement? I think our differing views about “crossing the line” is a difference between Australia and America in respects of custom and laws regarding defamation and free speech.

Gigantic Waste of Time

Needless to say, a course can be valuable even if unpleasant. Unfortunately, however, most students seem to emerge from introductory economics courses without having learned even the most important basic principles. According to one recent study, their ability to answer simple economic questions several months after leaving the course is not measurably different from that of people who never took a principles course.

What explains such abysmal performance? One problem is the encyclopedic range typical of introductory courses. As the Nobel laureate George J. Stigler wrote more than 40 years ago, “The brief exposure to each of a vast array of techniques and problems leaves the student no basic economic logic with which to analyze the economic questions he will face as a citizen.” [Emphasis added. HT: Vox Day.]
When I took my introductory Econ course in college (nearly a year ago), I quickly saw that I was going to be the only student in that class getting an A. The reason for this was due to a) having a good professor who was a terrible teacher and b) having a textbook that devoted more space to graphs than to words.
The problem with the professor wasn’t simply that she was a neo-Keynesian. Rather, the problem was that she simply couldn’t explain fundamental economic concepts in a way that her students could understand. The money multiplier effect was explained as an equation. Supply and demand was explained as an equation. Price elasticity was explained as an equation.
Of course, virtually all economic rules and relationships can be expressed mathematically, but the professor made the mistake of thinking that real-world examples exist to explain the models when, in fact, it is the other way around. As such, all classes started with theory and occasionally were related to the real world, leaving all my classmates confused and exasperated. The professor would have done well to read Adam Smith’s classic treatise, for the whole discipline of economics (and, really, all other scientific disciplines) exists to explain the real world by using simplified models. There’s a reason the old joke about economists goes “I know it works in the real world, but does it work in theory”.
Since I had been reading economic works since I was fourteen, I was incredibly overprepared for this class. So, I ended up tutoring half my classmates, which turned out to be quite lucrative. In fact, I got Student Services to bend the rules for me so I could tutor my classmates. I also functioned, essentially, as a co-professor because I was called upon quite often to explain various economic principles in ways that my classmates could understand. This had the bonus effect of ensuring that I got the numbers of every girl in that class, which led to a couple of dates. It was great time in my life.
The problem with the textbook was that it was too convoluted. I had difficulty following along, but only because my eyes would glaze over from boredom. The book was needlessly technical, which was off-putting to most students, and most “real-world” examples were too hypothetical for most students to relate to. Most of my classmates would come into class complaining about how they read the book multiple times and still didn’t grasp it.
I ended up drafting a proposal to use Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics as the class textbook in order to make it easier for future students to make sense of this relatively simple science. I have no idea where this proposal stands as of now.
The saddest part of modern economics courses is that they take such a vital and easily understood subject and dress it up in highly technical jargon so as to render it incomprehensible to students. I suppose this enables professors to feel smarter for grasping something so difficult, but the purpose of school is to teach students how to be relatively proficient in a variety of disciplines; the purpose is not supposed to be providing teachers and professors a way to stroke their own egos. And if schools are not going to make an effort to ensure that economics is taught an in easily understood manner, they may as well not offer it at all.