By The Gold Report, on August 19th, 2011
Rare earth elements have made possible improvements in everything from smart phones and plasma televisions to clean energy technology. In this exclusive interview with The Critical Metals Report, Jason Burack, independent investor and cofounder of Wall St. for Main St., and Kevin Kerr, commodities trader and president of Kerr Trading, share the names of the rare earth element companies to watch as the market grows.
The Critical Metals Report: The rare earth element (REE) space is the most complicated space in the mining and metals sector. Mining these elements is complex, often involving permitting and infrastructure issues. Once mined, separating REEs to high manufacturer purity levels is even more complex. Then selling the isolated REEs often involves highly specialized marketing. Why should an investor place money in the REE space?
Jason Burack: REEs have an amazing amount of innovation upside right now. Because of the innovations coming down the pipeline, the market has the potential to exhibit an annual double-digit growth rate, which offers far more upside than most other commodity sectors. It’s an amazing growth opportunity for investors because the REEs are going to play an important role in making high-end technologies efficient and also in supporting new innovations. In new high-end technologies, REEs are the secret sauce.
Kevin Kerr: These are the metals of the future. There are applications with these metals that we can’t even conceive of yet. It’s very exciting to be involved in these elements. I think part of the benefit of REE mines is that they are limited. There are few players out there that really have all those elements and are innovating. The ones that do have all the pieces in place offer good opportunities for investors. There’s always risk with anything new, but the risk/reward balance is very good in this sector.
TCMR: Can you comment on some of the recent innovations?
KK: For years, REEs were just wasting away; they were not really considered a good investment until engineers realized they were vital to some of the things we use every day—everything from specialized glass to green energy technologies and special batteries to super magnets. The list goes on, including developing technologies like water purification systems, which I believe Molycorp Minerals (NYSE:MCP) is exploring. Prices have exploded.
JB: The primary use for REEs for a long time was the europium in color TV sets. Molycorp, which was supplying much of this demand, had decades’ worth of used tailings sitting around doing nothing. The Chinese saw the potential of this market and spent a lot of time and money to build out uses for the other REEs mined alongside the europium.
TCMR: The United States and Mexico have filed a Memorandum of Understanding with the World Trade Organization over China’s protectionism regarding REEs. China controls about 95% of the world’s REE supply today. The Chinese government increased tariffs and reduced exports, while cracking down on illegal miners. This will further limit the supply and tighten their grip on prices. Do you think the U.S. and Mexico are going to get anywhere by filing complaints against China? Or are we just going to have to wait for another supply of REEs to come to market?
JB: I would prefer a free market solution to government intervention, but REEs are not a free market right now. China has a monopoly on supply and processing, but the government seems to be willing to reduce control. What China cares most about is the high-end value chain products because they saw what oil processing and related innovations did for the U.S. economy. China cares most about the higher value-added product jobs. That is why they are limiting export. They want the manufacturers to come to them.
As a result, you are going to see these other deposits, like Mountain Pass, coming back online. You are going to see Lynas Corporation’s (ASX:LYC) Mount Weld and Great Western Minerals Group Ltd. (TSX.V:GWG; OTCQX:GWMGF) come online. The supply problems, at least in the light rare earth elements (LREEs), will start to resolve themselves over the next couple years. The problem with the heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) is in supply. China is going to guard their higher-end jobs because they want that value-added industry.
KK: China certainly has a monopoly on HREEs. The question is how long will it take to build the next HREE processing facility outside of China? The answer is a long time, mainly because of environmental and regional problems. Also, who’s going to partner up to build this facility? The red tape, whether it’s in the EU or the U.S. or Mexico, is far more extensive than it is in China. They are years and years ahead of us in the game of producing HREEs.
TCMR: Kevin, you’ve spent 23 years as a commodity trader. What does that experience tell you about the REE space? And what’s the path for investors to make money here?
KK: This is one of the opportunities that a trader will see only once in a lifetime. A lot of people say, “This is just a bubble.” I don’t agree. I’ve seen many contracts and future markets come and go, but with REEs, it’s different. These are vital commodities that we are all using every day. We don’t want to lose our ultra-light cell phones and go back to the Gordon Gekko–style phones with the big battery. These things are only going to be more in demand, especially as the world population grows.
Investors can see it as a monumental opportunity. There’s certainly risk, and that’s important to stress. Anytime you’re trading in something new, you have to look out for those risks. But ultimately these markets are going to be some of the leaders in the 21st century.
JB: Because of the innovation upside as more people switch to newer smart phones and to alternative energy technologies, as the military becomes more efficient with less manpower and more unmanned vehicles, REEs play an important role. And the REEs market can grow a lot per year as the pie gets bigger with new innovations.
TCMR: You suggest in your Dragon Metals Report that three metals reign supreme among REEs. What are those and what are their primary uses?
JB: Well, if I was rewriting the Dragon Metals Report today I would actually expand the three to six: three lights and three heavies. The number-one LREE is neodymium, which is used in the neodymium-iron-boron magnet, a permanent magnet technology. Neodymium-iron-boron magnet technology has allowed for miniaturization of a lot of high-end electronics. It has literally made everything smaller, thinner and lighter. Consumers just love the fact that their iPad is so thin now. People talk about the operating systems and the processing speeds and all their applications, and they love them. They wouldn’t have any of this without the neodymium-iron-boron magnets.
The next two are lanthanum and cerium. Lanthanum will have a humongous industrial demand increase in petroleum refining. Oil and REEs are linked in this aspect. You will see a humongous increase as lanthanum is used very heavily in the refining process to crack heavy sour crude oil. The other one is cerium, which is used in car catalytic converters. Also, you’re going to see Molycorp bring on this XSORBX water filter, which combines cerium and nanotechnology. It’s the only filter that’s capable of removing pathogens and pharmaceuticals that the modern municipal water filtration systems cannot remove.
The heavies tend to be more prevalent on the Department of Energy’s Critical Metals Strategy list, so they have even better supply/demand fundamentals than the lights. Dysprosium is used in a trace amount in the neodymium–iron–boron magnet, but the magnet wouldn’t be as good as it is without the dysprosium in it. Dysprosium is not very common in terms of the percentage amounts in most REE deposits. It’s the most critical on the entire Department of Energy’s Critical Metals Strategy list because it’s rare and it’s very important to clean energy. The other couple of heavies that people should learn the names of are terbium and europium. Terbium is used in compact fluorescent light bulbs as well as in smart phones. Europium is going into smart phones too.
TCMR: In many cases REE production in China has caused vast environmental degradation. Some Chinese farmers can’t safely plant crops near the mine sites, and drinking water in these areas can sometimes be deadly. Nonetheless, Molycorp plans to mine 20,000 tons per year of REEs in California, which is not considered a “mine friendly” state. What makes you think Mountain Pass will be permitted?
JB: Molycorp is using innovative technologies in their processing facilities now. Yes, California does have environmental concerns, but California wants to transition to clean energy and the state has been subsidizing that. Molycorp has to demonstrate that it can operate in an environmentally responsible way and that they can do it at scale. The company has the capital and the know-how to be able to do it. It’s already a previously mined ore body with decades of data, so that’s an advantage. The infrastructure is there.
There is new technology to process the REEs safely and do all the refining. It’s going to cost a little bit more money up front, but Molycorp management is saying their production costs are going to be even lower than China’s costs. It’ll be an impressive feat if Molycorp management actually delivers on these promises.
TCMR: It’s possible that these companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bring their mines into production and build the facilities to properly separate those metals from one another could be jeopardized if China opens the tap, floods the market with heavies. How are companies going to deal with that?
JB: We don’t have a free REE market. Governments will probably buy REEs for a secure supply to protect REE miners bringing production online. In fact, Japan, the U.S. and the EU have all recommended that their governments start stockpiling a safe and secure REE supply to protect themselves from the Chinese monopolizing the industry.
KK: This is a real concern. China could dump pretty much anything on the market, and they do once in a while. They’re shrewd traders. No one can say for sure what they will do, but the stockpiling that’s gone on will have some effect as well.
TCMR: In early August, we witnessed a massive selloff of REE names. On August 8, names like Quest Rare Minerals Ltd. (TSX.V:QRM; NYSE.A:QRM) and Avalon Rare Metals Inc. (TSX:AVL; NYSE.A:AVL; OTCQX:AVARF) fell at more than 10% and 13% respectively. Are these so cheap now that it’s time to fill your boots?
JB: If I was building a model REE portfolio and I had to concentrate the majority of my money into three companies, they would be Neo Material Technologies (TSX:NEM), Molycorp and Great Western Minerals. Then I would sprinkle some of the other top juniors like Quest, Avalon, Tasman Metals Ltd. (TSX.V:TSM; OTCPK:TASXF; Fkft:T61), Stans Energy Corp. (TSX.V:HRE) or Ucore Rare Metals Inc. (TSX.V:UCU; OTCQX:UURAF). Lynas and Rare Element Resources Ltd. (TSX:RES; NYSE.A:REE), which might have some more heavies in the deposit, are wait and sees.
Investors really need to be discriminatory with their capital. If they are going to put a model REEs portfolio together, I think the heavy concentration should be in Neo Material Technologies, which is already profitable. They don’t have to worry about the prices of the supply, and they make a value-added product so their profit margins are safer. Molycorp has the funding in place already, and it already knows its ore body. I think Molycorp and Great Western Minerals Group Ltd. are going to end up consolidating the sector with some of these other juniors.
TCMR: You’ve said “for this industry to flourish over the longer term it will have to consolidate.” What are consolidators going to be looking for in companies that are just below them on the food chain?
KK: The race is on to figure out who’s going to team up and create the next HREE processing facility outside of China. Everyone is looking for who has the cash, who has the supplies and the infrastructure. We’ve already seen some consolidation in the last nine months, and we’re going to see a lot more.
JB: If I was looking to consolidate the industry, I’d stick with my vertical integration strategy, focus on those making the higher value-added products. There aren’t a lot of people around that have the technical know-how to do it. And there aren’t a lot of these facilities in the world. Only a handful of facilities exist outside of China. I think one of them in France just sold for a big amount of money. Great Western Minerals has a couple of them and so does Neo Materials Technologies.
So, if I was looking to acquire and consolidate the space, I think Molycorp is going to end up being the control stock here, like PotashCorp (TSX:POT; NYSE:POT) has become in the fertilizer industry. I think Molycorp will go after Ucore for some of the heavy deposits and then the processing facilities like Stans Energy. Then maybe they’ll go after some other processing companies or do a joint venture with Neo Material Technologies further up the value chain.
TCMR: Ucore was just given “priority permitting assistance” from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. What does that mean for the stock?
JB: Ucore is going to be a big winner. I project the supply crisis in LREEs will be solved by the 2014-2015 timeframe depending on what true demand turns out to be. Then only the heavies will be in true supply deficit/crisis mode. For a company like Molycorp, which is going to be a lower cost producer, that’s going to be fine. Some of these other juniors that are planning on bringing production online from 2015 to 2017, primarily with light and very little heavies, are going to see a lot of trouble. Ucore has an infrastructure advantage, so they can be online and producing probably before 2015, probably the end of 2013 if everything goes according to plan.
TCMR: What about Ucore’s Bokan Mountain in terms of its HREE versus LREE content? Is this the kind of play that might suit a Molycorp?
JB: Yes, Bokan has higher heavies than lights compared to some of the other deposits. The infrastructure advantage is so good that the capital expenditure (capex) to get Bokan Mountain back into production is going to be minimal compared to some of these other mining projects.
TCMR: Molycorp, Lynas and Great Western are projected to be the first REE miners to reach production. But what are some companies that you think could surprise you and our readers?
JB: Commerce Resources Corp. (TSX.V:CCE; Fkft:D7H; OTCQX:CMRZF) and Medallion Resources Ltd. (TSX.V:MDL; OTCQX:MLLOF) could surprise along with Greenland Minerals & Energy Ltd. (ASX:GGG).
Greenland is a developing country. Most of the country’s revenue is coming from fishing and it is just starting to develop natural resource plays. If it is done environmentally responsibly, I think there will be less red tape in Greenland. And the deposit in Greenland is absolutely massive. The question is about the infrastructure because it’s a developing country.
In general, though, I wouldn’t risk putting a lot of capital into the plays below the cuff, the top two tiers of companies I suggested in my model REE portfolio, because the supply issues are going to solve themselves, especially in the lights, by 2014 or 2015.
TCMR: Kevin, what are you hearing about Stans Energy in Estonia and about the feasibility study on the Kutessay II project in the fourth quarter?
KK: It depends on who you talk to and when you talk to them about Stans. The concerns are legitimate about how much control Russia has over Stans and what they want, what the facility’s condition is, et cetera. I’m holding my judgment until I see it for myself. They are certainly one to be watched.
JB: The positives include a tremendous infrastructure advantage. Stans has the processing facility there; it just needs to be renovated, so the capex is not going to be absolutely massive. The company can probably keep the capex below a couple hundred million bucks. That’s a big advantage. And, it also has a technical advantage because the people who used to work at the facility still live around there. The company also has an innovation deal with a renowned Russian laboratory that specializes in REEs to separate them and innovate with them.
On the negative side, the company’s total grade of the ore body is low. That means the margin for error is very low on the mining side. Stans will have to make up for it on the processing side. And then you have the geopolitical risk on top of that. Investors are going to have to weigh these risks and rewards to determine if they are comfortable with Stans.
TCMR: Are you following any other companies that you think investors should be interested in?
JB: I think the most undervalued one right now is Great Western Minerals. It just announced a breakthrough deal with an already established and successful Chinese REE processor to team up to build another REE processing facility in South Africa closer to its Steenkampskraal Mine. Great Western Minerals is the only non-Chinese future REE miner to announce such a deal. It adds a lot of credibility to the company.
TCMR: How can people get your Dragon Metals Report and find out more about you both?
KK: We actually have our own website, dragonmetalsreport.com, where people can pick up the report and watch a video interview. They’ll be able to see samples of the report before they purchase it.
TCMR: Do you have some parting thoughts on the REE space before we let you go?
KK: I really believe this is a once-in-a-lifetime trader’s opportunity. I’ve never seen a market that has so much innovation potential that we can’t even conceive of yet. I probably won’t see a market like it again in my lifetime.
TCMR: Thank you for your insights.
Kevin Kerr has had over two decades of intensive industry and trading experience as a floor trader and broker as well as an OTC derivatives broker in New York and London. He travels the globe in search of resource opportunities and is the author of A Maniac Commodity Trader’s Guide to Making a Fortune: A Not-So Crazy Road Map to Riches, which was published by John Wiley and Sons. Kevin has appeared on Cavuto on Fox, Kudlow & Co. on CNBC, The Daily Show on the Comedy Channel, Fox Business News, NBC, ABC, CNN, and many more. He has acted as an analyst and trading advisor for publications at prestigious publishers like Weiss Research, Dow Jones Newswire, and Agora Financial. Kevin’s website, www.kerrtrade.com, offers visitors his blog and video blog, media page and events schedule, and political and economic commentary.
Jason Burack is an investor, entrepreneur, financial historian, Austrian School economist, and contrarian. Jason co-founded the startup financial education company Wall St for Main St, LLC, to try to help the people of Main Street by teaching them the knowledge, skills, research methods, and investing expertise of Wall Street. You can also find Jason’s work at his blog website at www.jasonburack.com
By Christopher Briem, on August 19th, 2011
I am a little far away so I don’t know if this is an error in the print edition or not. PG’s online headline on its main web page says “Regions’s unemployment rate rises“ (emphasis added). But the news out was just for the state’s labor force. The online story itself has the right title though.
*****
Obligatory Marcellus Shale coverage. We would retitle the big biz story today as ‘Voting with your shale’.
Speaking of Marcellus. I wonder what those who like to confuse correlation with causality have to say about the two main stories today: 1) Marcellus Shale natural gas output in Pennsylvania spiked (which Platts pointed out earlier in the week) this year and 2) state unemployment is up (see link earlier). But we are all to smart too be that superficial. Looking in depth into the numbers we see that jobs are indeed up in the state and by industry are being lead by job growth in health care and education services. Clearly Marcellus Shale development is getting people into the hospital more and pushing folks to enroll in higher education.
Joking aside I really am wondering more and more about the displacement of employment in other industries being caused by the demand for workers derived from Marcellus Shale development. Could be a part of the jobs story for the state.
*****
I see the headline about how the Mayor wants to return expanded parking meter hours to their traditional 6pm. They were expanded to 10pm as part of the great pension imbroglio (as short as I can put it). Two big things to me. In terms of sheer transparency, and easy transparency it would be… there must me a giginormous amount of data the Pittsburgh Parking Authority has that would be fun to play with. Wouldn’t it be fun to parse the changes in revenues and tickets since the hours were expanded. If you are reading here you might actually say yes to that, but think about what we could do if that data were available in aggregate or even by neighborhood or finer detail? Can you say ‘parking revenue elasticity’?
The bigger point on the parking story is that it is curious the relatively minor story of parking hours is in the news at all right now. The city is on the hook to deliver to the state very very soon the most important number relevant to all of this. Is the city really taking to the very last minute to produce the benchmark pension actuary report which will be the key datapoint in deciding if the state will take over the pension system?? That number will be the single most important factor impacting the city for the next decade and beyond. No way they don’t have that number already. Waiting to the last minute to actually deliver it is only going to make the state’s situation worse as they try to evaluate the numbers… oh, yeah….duh! Seems like that is the most important story all around is why we don’t know the ‘final’ numbers on that yet. Gonna be an interesting ride.
*****
And everyone is talking bees. Multiple stories in the PG and even Mike is into it. We be bees here from the beginning. Ha. I do wonder what happened to Bob’s bees.
By Mark Anderson, on August 19th, 2011
Prevailing practitioners of economics tell us that inflation stimulates exports. They get this inverted. Otherwise, pray tell, why wouldn’t Zimbabwe be the world’s leading exporter? Inflation inflicts injury upon the manufacturing base, engendering capital outflow and the destruction of jobs.
Contrary to prevailing economic orthodoxy, inflation is not export-friendly. Inflation nurtures dependence upon cheaper foreign markets to supply us with production (i.e. begets capital outflow). Capital outflow can be reversed by compelling the Fed to tighten. If the Fed tightens, interest rates rise, prices caollapse to reflect wages, the market clears (only then does the economic recovery begin), dollars that have accumulated in foreign reserves will coming flowing back into the domestic loan market, thus lowering the natural rate of interest.
“The dollar rose against most major currencies on Thursday as a latest report showed U.S. trade deficit plunged in February,” pursuant to one news source. (1)
“The contraction in the deficit came with a big recession-driven fall in imports and an unexpected rebound in exports, the Commerce Department said overnight in the US,” pursuant to another news source. (2)
In July of 2008, the dollar went through a rally – albeit, a pseudo-rally – marked by falling nominal prices. Although falling nominal prices is not deflation (i.e. the contraction of the money supply, which would be a healthy thing), that’s the definition of deflation pursuant to prevailing orthodoxy. When the dollar rally began, the trade deficit declined, due to both falling imports and increasing exports. In other words: the fall in the trade deficit had been accompanied by a dollar rally. What prevailing economic orthodoxy teaches regarding the international cycle of trade betrays this possibility.
In November of 2007, Ben Bernanke put on an exhibition of his confusion when he said that inflation is inconsequential for everything but imports. (3) He literally said that dollar devaluation raises prices of everything not denominated in….dollars! Apparently, Bernanke has been blinded by prevailing orthodoxy, which tells us that inflation mitigates a negative balance of trade – another Keynesian apologia for inflation that needs to be buried.
On a peripheral note, Bernanke’s argument runs slightly afoul of prevailing orthodoxy. Prevailing orthodoxy tells us that inflation does raise prices for Americans, and that this magically lowers real prices for foreigners. If Bernanke can’t figure out that increasing the supply of dollars raises dollar denominated prices, then the average person is hopeless for understanding the international cycle of trade and how capital flows.
The decline in imports and rise in exports in juxtaposition with the short-lived dollar rally were not a fluke, nor is this inexplicable. The trade “deficit” is but a symptom of monetary policy. A trade “deficit” isn’t bad per se. A trade “deficit” between two countries is no worse than a trade “deficit” between two towns. The consequential part is if the trade “deficit” is due to something other than comparative advantage (e.g. inflation).
“Again, suppose, that all the money of GREAT BRITAIN were multiplied fivefold in a night, must not the contrary effect follow? Must not all labour and commodities rise to such an exorbitant height, that no neighbouring nations could afford to buy from us; while their commodities, on the other hand, became comparatively so cheap, that, in spite of all the laws which could be formed, they would be run in upon us, and our money flow out; till we fall to a level with foreigners, and lose that great superiority of riches, which had laid us under such disadvantages?” –David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, 1752
What mainstream economists teach runs contrary to what David Hume taught us in 1752. Prevailing economic orthodoxy inverts the international cycle of trade. We are told that inflation mitigates the trade “deficit”. By inflating the money supply, dollars will become less attractive to foreigners. Thus, runs the argument, foreigners will follow by curtailing exports to the U.S. Somehow, domestic productivity will magically be increased, stimulating exports.
The genesis of this error is begotten by the underlying macroeconomic assumptions. Rather than using microeconomic principles to understand macroeconomic phenomenon, mainstream economics fragments microeconomics and macroeconomics into separate compartments. Macroeconomics then becomes myopic, by lopping individuals out of its paradigm. Myopic macroeconomics doesn’t consider individuals; it only considers aggregates.
Translated, the macroeconomic analysis is this: the country has dollars. If the country, or nation – or whatever aggregate you wish to use – decides to print more dollars, the country, or nation, isn’t going to refuse to use its own dollars. However, the country, or nation, of, say, France, being a different country, won’t like very much the devalued American dollar.
I guess we aren’t supposed to ask why both inflation and the trade “deficit” have risen in juxtaposition with one another. Sound economics gives us that answer. If inflation did mitigate a trade “deficit”, then one is boxed into the position of currency devaluation wars. Inflation vs. counter-inflation vs. hyperinflation.
The economy is made up of individuals making choices in exchanges. When the government devalues the currency, this doesn’t only make dollars less attractive to individuals abroad, but also to individuals right here at home. This is reflected with higher prices. It isn’t about aggregates printing more money for use by aggregates.
Consequently, inflationary stimulus interferes with the price mechanism preventing prices from falling to reflect wages. The market fails to clear, thus derailing an economic recovery. With mass unemployment, the last thing that will rise will be wages. The domestic cost of production goes up. Thus, to reduce costs, capital flight takes place. Inflation actually increases the dependence upon cheaper foreign markets to supply us with production.
As David Hume saliently articulated in 1752, inflation makes not only the currency less attractive abroad, but also the higher-priced goods. It also makes the higher-priced goods less attractive right here at home. Using inflation to remedy a trade “deficit” is akin to breaking a leg to make yourself more competitive.
The short-lived dollar rally in 2008 – thanks to central bank policy – was not the consequence of the declining trade deficit; it was the cause of the declining trade deficit. Everything denominated in dollars becomes cheaper. It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that one doesn’t become more competitive by raising prices.
If inflation actually mitigated a trade deficit, Zimbabwe would be one of the world’s leading exporters. Inflation doesn’t lower real prices for anybody. But even if inflation did mitigate a trade deficit by lowering real prices for foreigners, while making things more expensive for Americans, why would that be a good thing? Why should American economic policy be calculated to make things cheaper for foreigners and more expensive for Americans? Economic growth – which is not measured by the GDP – engenders falling prices, which is a good thing.
Pro-inflationary stimulus has served one purpose: preventing prices from falling to reflect wages. The market then fails to clear. The real issue isn’t even the direction of nominal prices, but what prices would otherwise be absent central bank manipulation. Even if prices fall in nominal terms while wages fall much faster, then we’re still suffering from the consequences of inflation. We can be suffering from lost price deflation. Falling nominal prices engenders rising real wages.
Inflationary policy by the FOMC suppresses nominal interest rates by increasing the supply of loanable funds, but without a genuine expansion of savings to fund investment. Investment can only come out of savings since producers must be able to consume in order to sustain the process of production. Deploying printing press money (i.e. unearned income) transfers money away from producers and the process of production to consumers. Inflationary stimulus disconnects consumption from production, turning Say’s Law upside down. Thus inflation not only drives capital overseas, but begets capital consumption. Inflation is injurious to the process of production.
Increasing the money supply tricks the loan market into consummating unjustifiable loans to non-credit worthy projects. That’s why malinvestment occurs and projects are halted midstream with the revelation of malinvestment. By allowing debtors to pay back creditors with devalued dollars, real interest rates are suppressed. There’s no right way for the loan market to extend credit at negative real rates, which is a negative ROR in real terms. That’s a calculus for the loan market to go bust as it did in 2008. See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/hist/h3hist1.htm Check out the early months of 2008. That’s not psychological and that’s not a matter of consumer confidence.
The long end of the curve is most sensitive to market forces while the short end of the curve is most sensitive to FOMC policy. If the Fed stays loose to prop up the bond market, this will undermine the very bond market the Fed is trying to prop up. Investors/lenders will account for the inflation risk by tacking an inflation agio onto the curve. Eventually, the Fed will lose control over the short end, too. Under the scenario where the Fed stays loose, there will be no floor underneath the dollar nor any roof on interest rates. If the Fed tightens, the short end will collapse instantaneously, bringing the long end down, too.
Under the scenario where the Fed props up the bond market indefinitely, both the bond market and the dollar collapse. Dollars will hit par value with the par value of bonds. The Fed will be left with $15 trillion plus – in nominal terms – worth of bonds on its balance sheet, and we will be left with both junk bonds and junk dollars. The dollar itself will go bankrupt. What’s the par value of bonds? We don’t know, because the Fed has been propping up the bond market.
Under the scenario where the Fed tightens, the bond market will collapse, but the dollar will be saved. Dollars won’t hit par value with the par value of bonds. The only way to save the dollar is at the expense of the bond market.
Until the Fed is compelled to tighten, we won’t have an economic recovery. The loan market has to set interest rates pursuant to the true supply of savings. If interest rates were to hit, say, ten percent on the two-year with a $15 trillion national debt, do the math. The longer interest rates are artificially suppressed, the higher they will have to go in order to correct the imbalances in the economy.
By tightening sooner rather than later, this will not only allow the market to discover the natural rate of interest by letting interest rates rise, this will encourage capital inflow. Capital naturally gravitates towards cheaper, higher-yielding, more efficient economies. It’s called arbitrage. The Fed is waging an eternal struggle against…arbitrage. People naturally gravitate towards where capital gravitates. We should be talking about repatriating dollars to the domestic loan market rather than repatriating immigrants to their native land.
It makes no sense to close down the borders considering the fact that welfare states engender capital outflow and the natural flow of people is to follow capital. (4) Thus it’s hard for me to not imagine that closing down the borders could be used to trap people in rather keep keep people out. Interfering with the flow of capital will necessarily lodge capital where it ought not be. Interfering with the flow of people will necessarily lodge people where they ought not be.
If a person, firm, or institution is dependent upon inflationary credit expansion – as opposed to non-inflationary – for sustenance, that person, firm, or institution is – by definition – insolvent. Somebody or some institution (e.g. the government) is spending beyond their/its means. As a nation, we have spent beyond our means. Expenditures exceed earnings and we depend on foreign markets to supply us with production.
Inflation (i.e. the creation of money ex nihilo) is no substitute for income-generating investment, which inflicts further injury upon an already precarious economy. There’s no right way to invest in the U.S. economy. It’s error to conflate trading with investing. Buying real estate is not investment. I’ll draw the distinction between trading and investing. A trader buys and sells a particular asset class based on nominal price movements. An investor buys and holds a particular asset class based on returns from the underlying asset class itself. In the case of real estate, that would be rents.
The problem isn’t a lack of regulatory oversight. One can’t regulate away past mistakes. Insolvency can’t be regulated away. The only solution is to force up interest rates, prices fall, dollars that have accumulated in foreign reserves will flow back into the domestic loan market, which will then beget a lower natural rate of interest. Any other solution will lead to the destruction of the currency, in which case everybody’s savings get wiped out. Loose monetary policy to prop up a spending orgy engenders capital outflow (i.e. begets outsourcing).
Inflation is a tax. There’s no objective difference between the government taking the money you have in your pocket and duplicating the money you have in your pocket, thus devaluing the purchasing power of what you have in your pocket. Even if prices don’t rise in nominal terms, the real issue is what prices would otherwise be absent central bank manipulation.
Furthermore, if one is going to hold the position that inflation is synonymous with economic growth, then they’re boxed into advocating skyrocketing prices in order to have a fast economic recovery. The way to have a fast economic recovery under such a scenario would be to have prices rise fast. I believe there’s a term for that. It’s called hyperinflation. Who supports hyperinflation?
The only path to an economic recovery runs through monetary tightening by the Fed. Waiting until we have an economic recovery before tightening is a calculus to destroy the currency and the economy. Absent dealing with monetary policy, no candidate can pretend to offer economic solutions. The only candidate who offers real solutions is Ron Paul.
1) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/10/content_11160595.htm
2) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/us-trade-deficit-dive-may-ease-slide/story-e6frg8zx-1225697017588
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ
The consequential portion of the video is around the 5:00 minute mark. Inflation is not rising prices. To say so implies that rising prices are caused by…rising prices. That contorts Irving Fisher’s own Quantity Theory of Money. Rising prices are the consequence of inflation, which is an expansion of the supply of money not redeemable in a fixed amount of specie. Prices could drop in nominal terms, yet prices could be too high in real terms. Falling nominal prices engenders rising real wages. We can still be suffering from inflation due to contortions in the price mechanism since prices remain higher than what they otherwise would be absent central bank policy.
By The Energy Report, on August 19th, 2011
 Rising corn production acreage highlighted in the latest USDA crop report could lead to increased fertilizer demand and prices, says Richard Kelertas, a senior analyst at Dundee Securities. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, he points to which potash juniors could hit the market while demand is still high.
The Energy Report: U.S. corn production is up 4% from last year, according to a new Crop Production Report released this month by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The August 11 report forecast a 12.9 billion bushel harvest. “If realized, this will be the third largest production total on record for the United States,” the report stated. Will this result in an increase in domestic demand and prices for fertilizer, particularly potash?
Richard Kelertas: Yes. We expect a gradual, but steady increase in crop and fertilizer prices going forward.
TER: Last May you predicted potash prices of $750/ton. When might that occur and what countries are the main drivers for this?
RK: A peak could come anywhere from 18–24 months from now. Our thoughts are as follows: We are seeing very tight potash markets. The Chinese have been asking for more. The Indians have now settled a contract for significantly higher than what they wanted to pay. Farmers have been pressuring the government to make sure there is plenty of fertilizer—especially potash and urea—in the fields, but they also want to make sure it’s at a half-decent price.
The supply is now getting out to the fields, but the price has gone up simply because there is a bit of a monopoly, with the major producers represented by Canpotex Ltd. Our view is that the price pressure will continue for the next 12–24 months. No major new capacity additions—brownfield or greenfield—are planned for the next two to three years. Really, the new capacity doesn’t kick in until 2014–2015. So 2011, 2012 and 2013 are going to be very tight markets. That’s on the fertilizer side.
On the food side, we have stock:use ratios that are very low. Crop prices are starting to recover although the second economic crisis we are going through now may cause those prices to ease off a little bit. Some crop harvests are going to be low throughout the world. The stocks of various staples will be tight for the next one to two years. So we think this is a perfect storm for fertilizer prices to continue to run up. It won’t reach the level of the last run up in 2008–2009, but it is certainly a very buoyant market.
TER: What impact do short-term stock fluctuations and economic challenges have on both food prices and fertilizer prices? What about the prospect of a weaker dollar?
RK: As you’ve seen in the past, it has had a short-term impact. If the fundamentals were weak to begin with—meaning crop stocks were high, harvests were very, very good throughout the world and inventories of nutrients were either at their 5–10 year averages or above—then you saw a significant downturn in nutrient and crop pricing along with usage. Farmers back off if crop prices aren’t high enough because they won’t get enough per-acre to justify putting in more nutrients. Plus, the bounce back in 2009–2010 and the beginning of 2011 was because of both strong fundamentals for fertilizers and crops and a tremendous amount of stimulus from governments that were pumped into the market. It remains to be seen whether governments still have those arrows in their quivers. I would suspect that this is going to be a little more drawn out.
Several governments are near crisis situations. The European Central Bank has said it will buy Spanish and Italian bonds; that will certainly help for the time being. The real question is: Are international consumers going to back off on buying feedstuff for cattle, poultry and their own diets? Will the middle class throughout the world continue to demand better nutrition? If that’s the case, even with an economic crisis, you will still see crop prices hold up fairly well. If everyone goes into a cocoon and cuts back on everything, then we could see prices fall back and the recovery will be that much longer. So it does have an impact. In this particular case, we think it is going to be short lived. We think it is going to be a couple of months where everyone steps back and commodity prices generally step back along with that. Nutrients and fertilizers are like any other commodity. They react to the individual fear factors going on in world markets.
As the U.S. dollar continues to weaken over time compared to other major currencies, potash prices in U.S. dollar terms will strengthen alongside the strong fundamentals.
TER: You mentioned some new capacity that might be coming on in 2015. Where is that and what companies are going to be behind it?
RK: PotashCorp (TSX:POT; NYSE:POT; Not Rated*) and Agrium Inc. (NYSE:AGU; Buy Rated) have some new plants. Those are brownfields. We also have the possibility of a couple of larger mines. Allana Potash (TSX.V:AAA; OTCQX:ALLRF; Buy Rated), for instance, may have its open-pit mine in Ethiopia up and running in early 2014. You will probably see only 300–500 thousand tons of potash come out of that operation in 2014, and it probably won’t be fully ramped up for 1 million tons (Mts.) until 2015–2016. We may have some more brownfield projects, but if they are deep shaft, those are going to take a heck of a long time. So, the most we are going to see is probably 2–3 Mts. with some brownfield plant expansions coming on by 2014–2015. Allana, which would probably be the first greenfield operation to come on-line, could be producing by sometime in 2014.
TER: Are fertilizer company stock prices going up along with food prices?
RK: No, they haven’t. Q211 results for most of the major players—The Mosaic Co. (NYSE:MOS; Not Rated), PotashCorp and Agrium—showed a bit of a perk up, but just as some real traction was starting to develop again, the debt ceiling issue put a stop to all upward momentum. Then we had the debt downgrade. That is going to put us on ice for the time being. Stock prices for all commodities will be off. If the U.S. dollar weakens enough, which we think it probably will over the next several weeks, then you may get a pickup in commodity prices as international buyers find it cheaper to come into the marketplace and any commodity priced in U.S. dollars tends to perk up. The light at the end of the tunnel could be negotiations with the European banks and U.S tax and spending reform.
TER: Let’s talk about what companies are going to be in a good position to capitalize on global demand when stock prices do come back.
RK: There will be, we believe, another run up going into 2012–2013 on stock prices. A prevailing fear factor will position well-established producers as the first ones to benefit when the market recovers. So Agrium, Potash, Mosaic—those are the key ones along with CF Industries Holdings Inc. (NYSE:CF; Not Rated) and Terra Nitrogen Corp. (NYSE:TNH; Not Rated). Those are the companies that have been around, have established solid earnings growth, have upped their guidance for 2011–2012 and have the volume and the staying power in this particular market. They have clean balance sheets, are well run and have some new capacity in brownfield tonnage coming into 2013–2014. So they are in good shape. Those are the ones we think will recover first.
The juniors will follow if there is a sustained market recovery. That includes Allana, PotashCorp, Karnalyte Resources Inc. (TSX:KRN; Not Rated), Passport Potash Inc. (TSX.V:PPI, OTCQX:PPRTF; Watchlist Buy Rated) and IC Potash Corp. (TSX.V:ICP; OTCQX:ICPTF; Not Rated). We could see Ethiopian Potash (TSX.V:FED TSX.V:FED.WT; Not Rated) and Encanto Potash Corp. (TSX.V:EPO; Not Rated) move as well. It all depends, however, on how far along these companies are in their development and the results of either updated resource reports or first-time NI 43-101s.
These things will all depend on how strong the potash market has remained even though the stock market has fallen off. So in the next three to six months, if the economy is actually in the dumps and all these potash prices have come off, then these juniors will basically go nowhere. Farmers are a pretty fickle bunch. If they smell that there is going to be any weakness in the overall economy or in crop prices and their returns, they will step back. And they can step back fairly quickly.
If, on the other hand, potash prices hold up at the $474.90/ton price recently signed by the Indians, then you are going to see these juniors perk up. As it stands right now, the fundamentals are still extremely strong—they haven’t deteriorated at all. Demand is high worldwide for crops, the stock:use ratios are very low and farmers have lots of money in their pockets. They are feeling pretty good about the next harvest. This is important because right now they are making decisions about the spring plant for next year. We expect crop prices to be very good and that application rates will actually be higher in 2012 because farmers are planting more and trying to bring back drought and floodplain areas with extra fertilizer applications where nutrients have been washed out of the soil.
TER: You mentioned some of the catalysts that would be necessary for the junior stocks to start appreciating. Do you want to go through a few of those, starting with Allana?
RK: We expect Allana to go ahead with its plan to get an open-pit operation in Ethiopia up and running by 2014. Additionally, Allana could be a takeover target for the Indian government, which is still bristling about signing a higher-priced contract for 2011 and 2012 delivery. Along with the Chinese government, the Indians have been very active in Ethiopia, delivering foodstuffs to drought victims and committing $300 million to a major railway infrastructure project. They may be looking to sign either long-term contracts or purchase a producer or an up-and-coming junior to deliver 2–3 Mts./year reliably. That makes a lot of sense long term. So, it is quite possible that someone like Allana or Ethiopian Potash—although it doesn’t even have drills in the ground yet—may have several suitors come calling. That is one catalyst.
We also believe Allana is talking to several banks to act as a project finance lead bank. When that is announced and the market sees that Allana is serious about going forward with production plans in 2014, we think that will perk up the stock. That is catalyst number two.
Catalyst number three will be the updated resource report coming out toward the end of the year and the bankable feasibility report coming out in February or March of 2012. That will show quite clearly the low open pit mining and extraction costs predicted. We believe it will be the lowest-cost operation and the first to production in the world. Once that becomes clear, it will be a catalyst for the stock price. So we have three events coming up in addition to the extra drilling in the Danakil Depression deposit. Those will be smaller catalysts that continue to show 25%+ potassium chloride (KCI) at very shallow depths and significant thicknesses.
TER: Another one you mentioned was Karnalyte?
RK: It is a solution-mine potential operation in Saskatchewan so you don’t have any of the country or transportation risks that you might have in Ethiopia. Investors who want to stick close to home during an uncertain market might like Karnalyte. It is a contiguous, large-scale deposit. There could be anywhere from 2–3 Bts. of potash there. The company has come out with its NI 43-101 and an updated resource report will be out at the end of the year. It believes it can get up to 3 Mts. in the next five years quite easily. This would be a solution mine with high capital costs to start up, but it is not a deep-shaft mine, which is five to six times the cost. It will be very low extraction costs, $100–$120/ton delivered to British Columbia seaports. The added benefit here is the extent of the magnesium-oxide deposits along with the KCl. Magnesium oxide is used for many applications, including as liners for arc furnaces in steel manufacturing. Manufacturers are willing to pay more for secure, zero-boron content magnesium oxide. That is another revenue stream that has not been factored in by the markets. The company has hired a specialist in magnesium oxide extraction and end-use processing to capitalize on that opportunity. It will issue a report in the next six months on the conclusions. That could be the catalyst that drives Karnalyte to new heights.
TER: Very impressive. How about Passport Potash?
RK: Passport is coming out with its NI 43-101 in September, so that will be the first catalyst. It is not as great a deposit as Allana or Karnalyte, but it is located right smack dab in the middle of Arizona with all the infrastructure in place—road, rail, power and water; it has everything there. There are no environmental issues to deal with and all state, federal and local governments, including the Native American community, are on the company’s side. They all want this thing to be developed. The area is economically depressed and this project will employ 300–400 full- and part-time workers. So the catalyst here is the NI 43-101, that is number one. Number two is that the deposit could be big, although with not as high a KCl content as Karnalyte and extraction costs may be a little bit higher as well. To get the concentration of KCl that it needs to produce a good, modern organic product, it is probably going to have to extract more slurry than some of the other producers. However, this deposit could be 2–2.5 Bts. and there are other interested parties. A large oil company just to the south of Passport Potash’s concessions is looking to diversify its product mix. So it is quite possible that we could see Passport Potash have a suitor or two come calling.
TER: Interesting. IC Potash?
RK: IC Potash has a very interesting story. It is a little bit further behind everyone else in terms of getting its project up and running. We will probably have more information for you in the next call.
TER: The last one you mentioned was Encanto?
RK: Encanto is, again, in Saskatchewan. It has all the native groups on its side. It has a substantial resource, but will come online later than some of the others. We don’t expect it to be up and running until 2015–2016. It is a solution mine with a good management team and a fairly contiguous deposit. We wouldn’t rank it at the top of our list. Allana is No. 1, Karnalyte No. 2, Passport No. 3. Encanto is in the middle third of the juniors we watch.
TER: Anything else that our readers should be watching out for in the potash space in the next six months?
RK: I think you will find that there is going to be a race to get things up and running as quickly as possible. The savvy investor should get into the space now. By 2015–2016, you will have a lot of projects, and if any of these juniors come online, which two or three of them certainly will, you are going to have enough potash coming on market to supply all demand through 2017–2018. That could lead to a pullback in these stocks from 2014–2015. So you have two-and-a-half years of good market returns coming. To take advantage of that window, get involved with potash players that are established—Agrium, PotashCorp. or Mosaic, and Agrium is our favorite of those three. But also play the select juniors that have a good chance of getting up-and-running with a better-than-even chance of getting linked up in a large offtake agreement or having a suitor come calling. Those would be Allana, Karnalyte and Passport Potash.
TER: Thank you so much for your time today. It has been very enlightening.
RK: Thank you.
*Dundee Securities rating
Richard Kelertas has 25 years experience as a research analyst covering the forest products sector. He has been one of the top-ranked analysts in the sector over the years consistently, and was most recently ranked No. 1 by Brendan Woods. Richard has worked for a number of well-known brokerage firms, including ScotiaMcLeod, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, UBS Warburg, and Desjardins Securities. He has a bachelor’s degree in forestry and a master’s degree in forestry and economics from the University of Toronto. Richard is also a Registered Professional Forester.
 Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
|
|
Most Popular Posts