Junior Miners Still Giving the Street Something to Talk About: Philip Ker

Philip Ker Which junior miners are giving the Street something to talk about? Some shining examples of promising companies with good balance sheets do exist despite what seems like a market dominated by bad news. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, Philip Ker, an analyst with Vancouver-based Union Securities, shares the good news his latest site visits have revealed about projects in Nevada and Mexico.

Companies Mentioned: Atna Resources Ltd. – Geologix Explorations Inc. – Kootenay Silver Inc. – Northern Graphite CorporationRye Patch Gold Corp.Timmins Gold Corp.

The Gold Report: Kitco reports that gold-specific exchange-traded products (ETPs) attracted $570 million (M) in net new funds, and holdings of gold ETPs hit an all-time high of around 77 million ounces (Moz) during the second quarter. There were also inflows into silver ETPs of $269M. Will this impact mining equities?

Philip Ker: We’re in a period of extremely tight liquidity within capital markets. Any capital that’s not being deployed into equities and transformed into ETPs will definitely impact equity valuations going forward. Keep in mind that exchange-traded funds do offer variable perks, such as diversification and lower management fees versus other managed investment options, which is why a lot of investors are beginning to favor them.

Related Articles:
Is It Time to Get into Gold Junior Mining Plays?: Philip Ker

Equities the Way to Benefit from Gold’s Strength: Henk Krasenberg

Mexico’s Silver Mines Shine: ‘Mexico Mike’ Kachanovsky

TGR: On a macro level, the problems of the euro continue to plague the U.S. dollar-denominated gold price. The International Monetary Fund recently said that there was “a sizeable risk” of deflation in the Eurozone. What is Union Securities’ view of what’s happening in Europe and the possible effect on the gold price?

PK: We believe that this is just a temporary shift out of the Eurozone, which is ultimately strengthening the U.S. dollar while consequently weakening the gold price. In the longer term, we see the gold price going much, much higher. The substantial leverage created by the U.S.’ escalating debt will cause investors to shift away from these temporary investment vehicles and back into the safety of gold.

TGR: When we talked to you in February you were predicting an average 2012 gold price of $1,725/ounce (oz) and $34.50/oz for silver. Have those numbers been revised since?

PK: We’re maintaining those targets until some macroeconomic things evolve and answers begin to be known, particularly concerning the skepticism within the market about the Eurozone and U.S. debt issues. There are also several significant elections globally, including the U.S. presidential election in November.

TGR: You must think that gold’s going to have a strong finish this year then?

PK: That’s correct. We are pretty optimistic for a strong run later this year and view the current lull in precious metals and relative equities as only a temporary phase of market sentiment.

TGR: Small-cap resource equities are down an average of roughly 40% since September 2011. Why should investors continue to hold these companies?

PK: The overall perspective of the investment community is that we are in a fairly bearish cycle. Fortunately for investors, markets are never static and there’s always an upside. I prefer the view to buy and accumulate when no one else believes there is money to be made. Buying at opportune times such as now positions one ahead of the herd and can churn much more profitable investments. If investors are well positioned and ready to take advantage of the market, they can be very prosperous in the long run.

TGR: You like sizeable and growing mining-friendly jurisdictions. What are some of the companies you’re following that fit those terms?

PK: Geologix Explorations Inc. (GIX:TSX; GIXEF:OTCQX) has a great gold-copper resource base in Mexico. In addition to its huge 187 million ton resource containing 4.5 Moz of gold equivalent, the company recently identified additional targets about 1.5 kilometers north of its resource boundary. Several of these anomalies are looking quite interesting from their geophysical signatures and preliminary sample results. The exploration team is currently taking additional prospecting and chip samples on the targets and will continue sampling and delineating them through an upcoming 5,000-meter (m) program.

“Buying at opportune times such as now positions one ahead of the herd.”

TGR: When should we know how much this new mineralized zone could add to its Tepal project’s resource?

PK: The company is aiming to start its shallow drill hole program later in August. I expect to see assay results in late September or October and that will give us a good indication of grades and potential. A secondary program would follow up on successful results.

TGR: Geologix has a prefeasibility study due in the third quarter. What does that study need to show in order to move the needle at the company?

PK: The study should confirm that the economics of Tepal are robust. The project has a strong net present value, a long mine life and good production numbers at low operating costs. Unfortunately, Geologix has a lower market cap of about $30M at this time and capital expenditure (capex) requirements pushing $400M. It could be a severe challenge to get project financing. However, it should be able to use the prefeasibility study to its advantage in negotiating its financing options.

TGR: Do you believe that it will have to fully delineate that new mineralized zone before this project gets green-lighted?

PK: I don’t think so, but it definitely adds upside. What’s been indicated in the chip samples thus far is that grades are 2–3 times higher than what is in the current resource. It only gets better from here if there are additional grades and economic tonnage to be added.

TGR: What are some other companies you’re following?

PK: Northern Graphite Corporation (NGC:TSX.V; NGPHF:OTCQX) recently put out a bankable feasibility study and the market had mixed reactions. This was due to slightly higher than anticipated capex requirements and any potential dilution that may come into play as it raises capital to start the groundwork at Bissett Creek in Northern Ontario.

TGR: Northern Graphite is looking at possibly selling battery-grade graphite at a substantial premium to concentrate. The economics of that idea were not included in the recent feasibility study. Have you developed any models on how that could change the economics of Bissett Creek?

PK: My target actually includes the production of battery-grade graphite. I changed my model and increased my target substantially when Northern Graphite confirmed that spherical high purity graphite could be made from its large flake deposit. Currently, the company is investigating what parameters and infrastructure would be needed for upgrading a recovered flake concentrate to high-purity battery-grade material. Management is indicating that it would need approximately $10M in addition to the current capex requirements for the required processing facilities. An engineering study into the upgrading scenario is under way and we can expect the results of that later this year. Adding this circuit provides a substantial premium for spherical graphite of approximately $5,000/ton.

TGR: Right now, the company has about 60M shares outstanding. Considering those new capex requirements, how high do you think that float could go?

PK: It all comes down to an offtake agreement. I know management is keen on having some skin in the game from an offtake suitor. I believe the company will be working diligently on this over the next few months to solidify its financing options.

TGR: You regularly conduct site visits. Tell us about some of your recent trips.

PK: A few months back I toured Rye Patch Gold Corp. (RPM:TSX.V; RPMGF:OTCQX) in Nevada. The company is in an interesting scenario because of its current litigation with Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp. (CDE:NYSE; CDM:TSX) over some lapsed property claims that Rye Patch picked up. If Coeur d’Alene is continuing to mine the Rochester pit and is damaging Rye Patch’s claims, under current mining laws in Nevada, damages done to another’s claims requires three times the gross metal value taken out of the ground to be paid to the injured party. I believe Rye Patch is in a situation where it will either be taken out or awarded a substantial settlement.

TGR: You think the companies are likely to settle out of court for cash?

PK: To avoid the court battle and have the litigation result in favor of Rye Patch, I believe it’s in Coeur d’Alene’s best interest to settle out of court through a lump sum or just purchase the company outright. If the latter occurs, Coeur would add over 2.5 Moz gold and 32 Moz silver to its asset base plus upside from its exploration prospects in the Cortez Trend.

TGR: Rye Patch has the Wilco deposit in Nevada that it’s proving up. After seeing some of the core first hand, what were your thoughts?

PK: The site visit was a great learning tool to see the size potential of not only Wilco, but the entire Oreana Trend. It’s definitely in a good jurisdiction to be in for developing gold and silver projects. Wilco is a small past-producing pit, but there still remains a lot of upside and recent drilling targeted mineralized zones down dip along structurally controlled contacts. The recently updated resource proved the beauty of the beast and although low grade, an abundance of these deposits in Nevada get mined because of the simple fundamentals, infrastructure and quality personnel located in Nevada. I can see this is going to a mine someday with continued work on the property.

TGR: You recently launched coverage of Atna Resources Ltd. (ATN:TSX), which increased its gold production by 30% in 2011 and almost doubled its total Measured and Indicated gold resources, which are spread over several projects in the western U.S. What catalysts lie ahead for Atna?

PK: This is a great story and my current top pick. Last year, Atna picked up 100% ownership of the previously producing Pinson Mine just 30 miles north of Winnemucca, Nevada. The company is currently working underground with plans of commencing full production in Q4/12. Management plans on going from a small miner’s permit, which allows only 36,500 tons per year, to a full production permit of 400,000 tons per year in 2013. It should more than double its production in 2013 and beyond based on the addition of Pinson production alone.

” It’s an ugly time in the market but it’s a great time to be a value shopper for cheap mining stocks.”

The company is also poised for internal growth by using internal cash flows from its Briggs and Pinson mines to fund development at the Reward Mine. The Reward mine is also in Nevada, has easy access to infrastructure and will provide low operating costs under a heap-leach mining method. I believe Atna will have this project pouring gold in 2014 and would be the third producing mine under Atna’s asset portfolio.

TGR: Atna is developing quite the following. Joe Mazumdar, an analyst at Haywood Securities, follows the company, as does Rahul Paul at Canaccord. Pinetree Capital CEO Sheldon Inwentash and his holding company own almost 10% of Atna. Why does this junior have such a strong institutional following?

PK: Atna has a great pipeline of projects and an experienced management team to bring them into production. Acquiring the Pinson Mine at such a near-term production phase definitely gives the Street something to consider. The scale and ramp-up of its production from Briggs, and with the addition of Pinson, and shortly thereafter Reward, Atna has created a substantial growth trajectory for the company and for investors to look forward to.

TGR: Are there other companies under coverage that you’d like to tell us about today?

PK: I toured Kootenay Silver Inc.’s (KTN:TSX.V) Promontorio deposit in Sonora, Mexico, earlier this year. I came away quite impressed with the core and the layout of the land there. Management is extremely knowledgeable in hydrothermal-type deposits. I am currently anticipating a resource estimate to come out sometime in August and am targeting approximately 100 Moz silver equivalent, which is five times its historical resource. Management now thinks a substantial gold credit may be worked into the resource and would add additional value to the project valuation.

The stock has performed quite well during this market turmoil. I believe a lot of investors are keeping a close eye on it and it will be a good growth story moving forward.

TGR: You had a $2.50 target price on Kootenay around Christmas 2011. What’s your target now?

PK: It’s $1.75. It was cut based on lower comparable in-situ valuations for other silver explorers and developers.

TGR: The Promontorio deposit is quite promising and reasonably high grade. What about its mineability? Is the geological structure set in a way that’s going to make this easy to mine?

PK: The deposit is a hydrothermal breccia and the structure could be easily mined with a combination of open-pit and underground mining to target the various zonations and concentrations of higher-grade mineralization. The deposit has only undergone one good round of drilling and management is planning additional exploration within the center of the zone in order to further prove continuity between the northeast and the southwest zones where the historic pit is located.

“The substantial leverage created by the U.S.’ escalating debt will cause investors to shift away from these temporary investment vehicles and back into the safety of gold.”

TGR: Then we don’t really know yet if there’s no pit wall drilling. Can you tell us about some recent results that keep you optimistic about Kootenay?

PK: It’s definitely had some bonanza-grade intercepts, especially up in the northeast zone. It’s had exceptional numbers of about 18m of 873 grams/ton (g/t) silver equivalent within an intercept of 71m of 297 g/t silver equivalent. The strong metal credits from lead and zinc (and now possibly gold) lead to a good indication of metal credits should the project become a mine one day.

TGR: Of the companies you cover, which one is best positioned for a takeover?

PK: I’d say Timmins Gold Corp. (TMM:TSX.V; TGD:NYSE.A) is positioning itself nicely for M&A activity. Its San Francisco mine is located in a mining-friendly jurisdiction of Sonora, Mexico, and it has the infrastructure in place with considerable mine life remaining. Last year the company added over 1 Moz to the deposit through drilling and is currently expanding its throughput at the mine in order to achieve 32,000 tonnes per day, which will help the company exceed 130,000 ounces of production annually. A complete takeover or a merger of equals could be a likely outcome in the future.

TGR: When adding positions to a portfolio would you suggest dollar-cost averaging or looking for value in this market?

PK: At this time I would first look at companies with strong balance sheets and growth profiles. You know these companies won’t have to go to the market and end up with any equity dilution, especially at depressed prices. Then, if investors already hold those equities, I’d definitely take a look at the dollar-cost average if their portfolios are down. It could make the timing of the break-even point come faster and they could dissolve the position and look at other investment opportunities.

TGR: Could you please provide our readers with a bit of a pep talk to raise their spirits before you go?

PK: It’s an ugly time in the market but it’s a great time to be a value shopper for cheap mining stocks. I suggest taking advantage of this market to perform due diligence in order to pick the next winners, because there is always an upside to the market and there will always be more profits to be made. We’ve seen several good spikes out there, with parabolic-looking charts for some explorers, even in these tough markets. Investors should prepare and not be last on the train when the next upward ride in the market comes.

TGR: Thanks, Phil.

Philip Ker is a mining analyst for Union Securities Ltd., a company formed in 1963 that is now one of the largest independent brokerage firms in Canada. The company has offices all across Canada, as well as one in London. He has field experience as an exploration geologist working across Canada on gold, diamond and base metal projects. He joined Union Securities in June 2011 after completing a Master of Business Administration degree in finance at the University of Alberta. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in geology.

The Curious Case Of Liquidity Traps And Missing Collateral – Part 2

In this second part of my take on liquidity traps and missing collateral in global financial markets I would like to respond to some of the talking points set out by FT Alphaville’s Cardiff Garcia (again in response to the much talked about piece by Credit Suisse). Even though blog posts tend to age quickly, recent central bank action suggests that this topic is relevant as ever. Specifically, negative readings across a wide range of short term interest rates in Europe has raised the question not only what the effect of such abnormal interest rates are, but also whether such market prices are sending a signal to central banks that they ought to act much more aggressively.

Following up on FT Alphaville’s coverage, one question that is intereting to consider is the following.

2) The movement of M1 and M2 in recent years seems not to have told us anything helpful about inflationary prospects. Should the Fed finally ditch them and start concentrating on another measure, perhaps one that incorporates some of the items above? Or bring back M3 (which at least included such shadow banking elements as institutional money market funds and repo)?

Initially, I should point out that I disagree with the premise of this statement. I think that there are still important effects from fluctuations in M1 and M2. Specifically, I believe that while being in structural process of deleveraging may certainly mitigate the inflationary pressures from central banks generating excess reserves (and liquidity) in the system, it is dangerous to assume that expanding base money does not have a real economic effect.

Still, this raises a very important point. The traditional monetary policy transmission mechanism is broken and as a result the size and expansion of base money aggregates have little bearing on credit creation in the real economy. The key question is the whether central banks should extend their control of the money supply further down the credit foodchain (i.e. closer to the end user/beneficiary of the credit)? And if you answer to this is yes, how do central banks do this most effectively.

Firstly, it is important to emphasize that, in many ways, they already have. Initial responses to the crisis in the US (and QE conducted by the BOJ) have been engaged in strategic and direct purchases of several kinds of marketable debt and equity securities, but central banks generally do not like to do that. Historically, the Bank of Japan has been most direct trying to influence market prices through the purchase of corporate bonds and exchange traded funds.

Now however, they are at it again of course. The BOE recently suggested open market operations with strings attached in the form of banks only getting access if they added to their balance sheet and in Europe, the ECB has cut its deposit rate to 0% and may even push it into negative this week.

The problem however is that it is very complicated for the central bank to do this effectively and a central bank will always be adverse to taking direct market risk (even if e.g. the allegedly most conservative central banks of them all, the ECB, has taken substantial market risks through the collateralised LTROs). In addition, targeting M3, M4 etc would mean an even more direct involvement in the credit process by which the central bank potentially acted as direct underwriter for pools of securitised loans of all shapes and sizes. This adds illiquidity to the balance sheet and exposes the central bank to significant mark to market risks which eventually may have to be covered by printing money. Such an implicit backstop to securities that the central bank may agree to buy creates significant moral hazard.

But it is certainly a fair question to ask whether central banks have been using the wrong tools as e.g. Izabella suggests in her coverage of the concept of the negative money multiplier.

Traditionally, a central bank will respond to a liquidity trap by supplying (potentially) unlimited levels of excess reserves to the banking system and thereby expanding the potential credit supply in the economy. The counterbalancing asset side entry here will usually be short term government bonds but also, if need be, longer term government securities. In this sense, expanding the balance sheet at the zero bound is essentially a fiscal expansion. However, as Izabella suggests, this may actually be counterproductive in an economy suffering from a structural lack of liquid and investment grade collateral.

The central bank will then actually exacerbate the lack of such assets by doing textbook QE which involves creating bank reserves in exchange for short term government securities. Demand for government securities (collateral), the story goes, would be more than enough to keep yields down and allow the government to conduct fiscal expansion at the zero bound. Still though, one would have to assume a complete lack of any market response from bond vigilantes ad infinity for this to work. I am not sure that I accept this.

So where does a broader monetary aggregate target come in? Well, from the account above the central bank could do two things.

1. Act on the liability side by aggressively cutting excess reserve requirement and enforcing a penalising rate on excess reserves. This would be a direct way (through the liability side) to attempt to jump start the money multiplier and force up velocity, but it will require the central bank to be indifferent between currency and reserves on its liability side (see below).

2. Avoid crowding out demand for safe collateral by booking anything but government securities on the asset side.

On the second point, I would note that this assumes a complete lack of bond vigilantes of any kind and thus no disciplinary market action in the context of financial repression. In the context of structurally overlevered governments across the developed world, I am not sure that this is a reasonable assumption over time. What would Gilts be trading at if the BOE was not holding 30% of the total stock outstanding and how would this have affected the government’s ability to borrow. In addition, taking direct market risk by e.g. purchasing pre-assigned tranches of securitised loans (to beef up broader monetary aggregates) would certainly not work if the underlying problem was one of a structural lack of solvent credit demand. I have argued for example that this is a major part of the problem both in the context of private and public borrowers.

On the first point, events have caught up with theorizing here with the ECB the first major central bank now imposing zero interest rates on its deposit rate (the Riksbank did this in 2008/09 too) and there is a serious probability that the rate may be moved into negative.

I have been lucky to have the opportunity to discuss this with the financial columnist and investor Sean Corrigan who makes the following crucial point.

People are treating this [negative deposit rates] in a completely erroneous fashion.  Even negative rates cannot force the banks to lend out the deposits they hold at the central bank; this is to assume they – as a whole – have choice in the matter: they do not. If the central bank creates what is called ‘outside’ money, by buying securities, etc, the corresponding reserves cannot be voluntarily removed: they have to be held as CB liabs/commercial bank assets on the central bank balance sheet.

(…)

What such a move could possibly do is to make it more imperative for banks to leverage up by creating new, extra loans (To whom? On what terms?) and to accept new customer depo’s (given that they hold a huge surfeit of reserves on their balance sheets with which to backstop these) and so compensate for the negative rate drain by the volume effect. I take this as dubious, however, given normal credit concerns and, in some cases, binding capital constraints.

Sean then goes on to make the final point that if the central imposes negative interest rate on reserves while at the same time wanting to maintain the size of its balance sheet, it would have to generate currency as reserves were withdrawn.

I think a couple of points are important to note at the offset.

The situation at the ECB and the Fed/BOE is different. More specifically, reserves created in the Fed/BOE is, as Sean points out, “outside money” and is thus what we could call “push QE”. The central bank has a policy objective to affect government bond yields and the only way it can do this is to generate reserves in the system. At the ECB and while the central bank may certainly have intended to affect government bond yields in the periphery this was “pull QE”; i.e. reserves were pulled from the ECB based on banks’ demand for such liquidity and, presumably, their need to shed themselves for collateral.

One of the main objectives as stated by the ECB was to provide liquidity to banks who could not otherwise refinance themselves in the short term money market. I think it is critical here to note that while the Fed and the BOE have always put forward specific targets for their QE operations, the ECB has not! If the banks had put up 2 trillion worth of collateral in the LTRO and asked for 2 trillion in liquidity they would have gotten it!

Anyway, to the point that banks are forced to hold these reserves (as a counterpart to the size of the balance sheet), in the perfect world it is not certain that this is the case. Let us assume a central bank conducts QE through the expansion of reserves with two objectives in mind.

1) To affect government bond yields (perhaps to allow the sovereign to run higher cyclical deficits for a period to boost aggregate demand).

2) To improve risk sentiment and risk taking in the economy through higher credit creation by commercial banks.

One immediate effect of such a policy in an environment where the monetary policy transmission is broken is that while government bond yields may go to zero it has no effect on lending to the real economy.

What can the central bank do? Not a whole lot as it were.

The central bank created the reserves in the first place and cannot easily induce banks to lend these out without compromising its asset side. In other words, it is difficult to pursue both objectives directly at the same time.

Specifically, if banks started to draw on its excess reserves to lend out to the real economy the central bank would need to one of two things. Maintain the size of its balance sheet constant by creating currency or reducing its holdings of securities on the asset side (government bonds). The latter is difficult to do especially if the central bank has been very aggressive in its sovereing bond purchases. Still, theoretically the central bank will be informed by the notion that the economic multiplier of commercial banks lending out to the real economy is higher than central bank financed government spending. It is not inconceivable that this is what central banks may start trying to do. We are seeing this by the BOE now giving preferential treatment to banks lending out and the ECB with its latest move.

Finally, negative rates could, as noted above, force banks to lever up to make money and it is not inconceivable that this could work in some countries where the banking system sounder or where some banks may have the buffer to do so. The main risk for the central bank is that this reduction in its balance sheet simply forces reserves into government bonds anyway as commercial banks see no other choice. The structural features of financial repression also will point towards this.

Here of course, the practicality becomes an issue. The BOE now holds 30% of all Gilts outstanding and if it started to sell these off as banks started to lend to the real economy interest rates across all maturities and lending products could rise very fast and in complete disconnection with underlying fundamentals. Currently, the position for central banks in this matter is complicated because as we have seen liabilities tend to migrate to the government balance sheet and as such the central bank needs to work very hard to keep borrowing costs in check for the sovereign.

Now, as for creating physical currency it is not clear to me that central banks would want to do this but the notes that I have read so far simply assume that it is given that commercial banks would be able to shift reserves into currency. This then brings up a whole hosts of other issues regarding the existence of cash at the zero lower bound. Citi’s chief economist Wilhelm Buiter for example has suggested that physical currency be retired altogether and that electronic money be used instead. Such electronic money could of course be subject to exactly the level of negative interest rates the central bank deemed fit or perhaps even be subject to a fixed maturity.

Negative deposit rates have another effect in so far as they induce carry trades in with the negative currency yielder as funder and thus pushes the currency (euro) down. Such real effective depreciation could be a powerful tool for the ECB and for once it is a first mover here.

Ultimately, negative deposit rates are no panacea and certainly in the context of central bank creating the excess reserves in the first place, but the effect of FX markets as well as the potential for its effect on the quantity of currency in the system should be keenly watched.

Economic Events on July 31, 2012

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

At 8:30 AM Eastern time, the Employment Cost Index for the second quarter of 2012 will be announced.  The consensus is an increase of 0.5%.

Also at 8:30 AM Eastern time, the monthly Personal Income and Outlays report for June will be released. The consensus for Personal Income is an increase of 0.4% over the previous month and the consensus Consumer Spending index change is an increase of 0.1%.

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

At 9:00 AM Eastern time, the monthly S&P/Case-Shiller home price index report will be released.  Given that most economists don’t expect the overall U.S. economy to improve until housing prices end their decline, the market will be watching this number closely.

At 9:45 AM Eastern time, the Chicago PMI Index for July will be announced. The consensus index value is 52.5, which is 0.4 points lower than last month, but is still above the break-even level at 50.

At 10:00 AM Eastern time, the monthly report on Consumer Confidence for July will be released.  The consensus index level is 61.5, which would be a 0.5 point decrease from last month’s number.

Also at 10:00 AM Eastern time, the State Street Investor Confidence Index will be released, which looks at changes in the amount of equities held in the portfolios of institutional investors.

At 3:00 PM Eastern time, the Farm Prices report for July will be released, giving investors and economists an indication of the direction of food prices in the coming months.

How many natural gas vehicles are there in Pennsylvania?

Seems like a simple question doesn’t it.  All the talk, buzz and policy swirling around the future of natural gas you would think someone would have information on the total number of natural gas vehicles currently in use in Pennsylvania.  I could not easily find anyone with a guestimate even which I thought is strange.  Can anyone find what I missed?  Even an estimate would be something.

That was inspired by this article in the Economist recently on some international benchmarking of natural gas vehicle usage by country.  I simplify the infographic into something that is surprising. My question is how big would Pennsylvania’s dot be if we had the data?  Big enough for screen resolution to show?

This post is really a test to see if Wiz’s 3rd shift is awake yet.

Play US Energy Independence with Income-Generating MLPs: Stephen Maresca

Stephen Maresca Fossil fuels have to be transported and stored. This is the classic midstream industry that resides between the producers and the marketers and that generally makes money regardless of the price of oil, natural gas or natural gas liquids (NGLs). Now, with the boom in production coming from unconventional oil and gas shales and the enhanced technologies that produce fuels in areas where it was once impossible, the demand for midstream oil and gas infrastructure is growing. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Morgan Stanley Managing Director and Master Limited Partnership (MLP) Analyst Stephen Marsesca makes his case for a handful of MLP and common stocks that will generate increasing cash flow and dividend payouts.

The Energy Report: In your last interview, you told The Energy Report it was a good time to be involved in midstream plays. What about now?

Stephen Maresca: It’s still a good time to be involved in midstream stocks. A lot of unconventional oil and gas shale plays are increasing production and require new infrastructure to bring their supply to market. The growth outlook is still as strong as it was a year ago, even though recent commodity price weakness has created some investor concern.

We are now adding duration to this growth story: Midstream companies are adding projects not for just this year, but as far as three years out. When those projects are completed, they will add incremental cash flows for these companies. Over the next few years, we estimate about $60 billion ($60B) in growth capital is going to be spent among our companies under coverage, and we believe a lot of that has been derisked. Many new projects are coming on line with volume commitments from producers and many of these long-term contracts are not tied to commodity prices. It is becoming a more visible story.

TER: The midstream industry seems very unusual given current market conditions.

SM: That is largely because the energy landscape has improved so much over the past five years, with advancements in oil and gas technology, horizontal drilling and lower drilling costs. The technological improvements have really been a game changer for the energy industry, and that is why this story is so visible. There have been remarkable supply shifts and production growth from areas that did not previously have infrastructure or end-demand markets. For example, the oil being found up in North Dakota needs to be moved out into end markets where it can be used by refiners (like the Gulf Coast or Northeast). This is where the midstream companies play a critical role in building the interconnects to bring the new oil supply to end-use markets.

“It’s still a good time to be involved in midstream stocks.”

Specifically, we think the midstream group of MLPs is attractive on a value basis with yields where they are now. The median yield in our coverage universe is currently 6.5%, and we think distribution growth over the next couple of years is likely to be 7% on average. Year-to-date MLP stocks have experienced modest share appreciation, about 1%, but with where things stand right now we see average potential total stock returns at 13–14% for the group.

TER: If you could put your theme in a nutshell, how would you describe it?

SM: Building critical North American energy highways. This is an organic building story. This type of opportunity did not exist before because we did not have this type of supply shift and production growth, and now we do. These are still-in-the-ground, non-discretionary, essential energy assets that are helping to advance energy independence for the U.S. We now have increasing oil production in addition to the increasing gas production that we have had for several years. The gas derivatives, the NGLs—ethane, propane and butane—are also increasing in volume and need to be handled. End users like utility companies, petrochemical companies and refiners are going to benefit from this new and increasingly abundant supply of oil and gas.

TER: What does this increasing production portend for capacity? Can fees rise?

SM: We believe revenues are going to rise handsomely over the next three or four years because of the $60B in spending that I mentioned. We see cash flows for these companies, in many cases, rising 11–12% per year over this time period because of the buildout.

There are many asset locations where we are constrained in capacity, so we need to build more. We are constrained in areas like the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, North Dakota and the Marcellus and Utica shales. Increasing volumes in these areas are creating the need for new building.

TER: Are you seeing net inflows of funds into these instruments?

SM: We are seeing money flow into the sector. I think the MLPs have become more of a mainstream sector with more investors participating. Larger companies, market caps and daily trading volumes are attracting broader participation across all types of funds—institutional funds, mutual funds, closed-end funds and hedge funds. This is an important and growing part of the energy industry and it is likely to stay that way.

TER: Is the midstream industry healthy today, and does it represent value for investors?

SM: Balance sheets are, for the most part, quite healthy given lower levels of debt to cash flow and recent equity raises. Distribution payout coverage is higher today than it was four years ago. The amount of commodity sensitivity, in general, is declining for the industry as more fees and volumes come on line that are not directly tied to commodity prices. So, bottom line, I would say the sector is healthy in terms of the financial structure and fundamentals.

“The energy landscape has improved so much over the past five years, with advancements in oil and gas technology, horizontal drilling and lower drilling costs.”

Yields still trade wider on a spread to 10-year bonds than they have in the past, which is one metric we review. They are about 70 basis points wider than historical norms. With interest rates overall looking to stay low and growth rates sustainable for the next year or two, the risk-reward opportunity for the long term is attractive.

TER: Some of the MLPs in your coverage universe are up double digits over the past month. Is a good earnings season upon us?

SM: Not necessarily. I think some of the stock rebound recently was reflective of an oversold sector and an increase in recent fund flows. Investors have concerns about commodities pulling back and some of those concerns are valid, as it can impact a portion of cash flows and longer term could impact volumes. Now, we have recently gotten some support in commodity prices. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price has moved back up from below $80/barrel to nearly $90/barrel. NGL prices have gone from $0.80/gallon up to $0.90/gallon. Things have calmed with support for the commodity.

I think second quarter earnings will be weak in certain spots. You have some companies that will see subdued results because of the lower commodities during the quarter. I do not think this changes the forward forecast for volumes and project growth, hence our positive longer-term view.

TER: What MLPs and C-corps do you recommend for your clients?

SM: One of the names that we’ve been recommending is Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI:NYSE). We think this is one of the lower-risk growth names in our coverage universe. It’s trading at a 4% current yield, and we think you’ll see 16% dividend growth in the next 12 months.

“The sector is healthy in terms of the financial structure and fundamentals.”

It just recently purchased El Paso Corp., and that closed about six weeks ago. We think this was a very good purchase, and it helps to lower Kinder’s risk profile because the assets are essentially long-haul, eight-year weighted average contracted natural gas pipelines with 93% of the capacity under contract. There’s not a lot of variability associated with the assets purchased.

Kinder is poised to expand on what we think is one of the better footprints in North America in terms of expansion of pipelines because of a growing volume story. It’s working on a large oil pipeline up in western Canada called Trans Mountain that could be more than a $4B investment. And it clearly has a lot of opportunities now with the El Paso assets that it can drop down into its MLPs, both Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. (KMP:NYSE) and El Paso Pipeline Partners L.P. (EPB:NYSE), which will help funnel cash back up to Kinder Morgan Energy Inc. to help grow its dividend. It’s a well-run company with one of the better management teams in the space, and there are a lot of synergies from buying El Paso. Kinder Morgan originally talked about $350M in synergies, and now it’s gone up to $400M.

TER: Kinder Morgan Energy is a C-corp, not an MLP. Is there any advantage to the C-corp?

SM: Not particularly. They own a lot of similar assets compared to MLPs, such as pipelines, terminals, gathering and processing plants. The big difference about a C-corp common stock is that it is a taxable entity, and it’s a common stock, so you get qualified dividend tax treatment. Being a C-corp doesn’t really offer many advantages other than possibly more trading liquidity, depending on the size of the company.

TER: What’s your next promising name?

SM: We like Williams Companies Inc. (WMB:NYSE). The current dividend yield is over 4%. We expect dividend growth over the next 12 months of about 22%, and our target price is $37. I think the interesting thing about Williams is that it has really set up a promising footprint in the Northeast. We feel it is going to become one of the dominant players in the Marcellus and possibly Utica shale plays. It has a great set of pipeline assets in that region, as well as in western Canada. It has one of the best balance sheets and we think the company will see continued volume increases in the Northeast from gas and liquids production.

Williams’ Transco pipeline goes from the Gulf Coast up to the Northeast, and I think it is one of the better pipelines in the U.S. It is close to the Eastern Seaboard, and there will be a lot of expansion because of increases in demand from utility companies. There could be upward of a couple billion dollars of expansion projects on that pipeline alone because of increases in power generation and ongoing abundant gas supplies.

TER: Who else stands out in this space?

SM: I would say another one right now would be Atlas Energy L.P. (ATLS:NYSE). This is more of a small-cap name. The current yield is about 3.3%, but it has the highest distribution growth of any company that we cover right now. The distribution is currently $1 per unit, and we see it growing to $1.87 per unit for the full year 2013. Atlas is unique in that it owns the general partner of two separate companies. One company is Atlas Resource Partners L.P. (ARP:NYSE) and the other is Atlas Pipeline Partners L.P. (APL:NYSE). The Atlas Pipeline assets are in some of the best basins—Oklahoma, Mississippi and West Texas—where there is a tremendous amount of expansion opportunities. We believe Atlas Pipeline will be growing cash flow by 10% or so over the next year. Atlas Resource Partners is a unique exploration and production (E&P) company with very little debt on its balance sheet that has been out buying assets from distressed E&P companies. The combination of the organic build at Atlas Pipeline Partners and the acquisition and production growth story at Atlas Resource Partners is fueling Atlas Energy L.P. Our target for Atlas Energy L.P. is $48. We see a lot of upside there.

TER: Stephen, is there one more you can mention?

SM: One last one I would mention is Energy Transfer Equity L.P. (ETE:NYSE), which has a current 6% yield. We have the distribution growing 10% next year. Energy Transfer Equity recently purchased Southern Union Co., and its subsidiary, Energy Transfer Partners L.P. (ETP:NYSE), is now in the process of acquiring Sunoco Inc. (SUN:NYSE), which owns an interest in Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (SXL:NYSE). I think the purchase of Sunoco is an important step for Energy Transfer as it adds an oil pipeline, storage and refined product business that it didn’t have before. This will help diversify Energy Transfer. Sunoco Logistics already had strong excess cash flow, a good balance sheet and a unique footprint with over 5,000 miles of oil pipelines in the Midwest, as well as a sizeable oil storage position along the Gulf Coast and some refined product terminals in the Northeast. It’s very well positioned for the increasing oil production flows in the United States, and I don’t think Energy Transfer Equity is getting full credit for the Sunoco purchase yet.

TER: Thank you, Stephen.

SM: Thank you.

Stephen Maresca is a managing director of Morgan Stanley covering energy Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and diversified natural gas companies. Prior to joining Morgan Stanley in 2008, Maresca spent 10 years at UBS focused largely on the energy sector. From 2001 to 2008 he was a director in UBS’ equity research division covering energy MLPs. From 1998 to 2001 he was an associate director in UBS’ investment banking energy group and from 1997 to 1998 he was in PaineWebber’s fixed income department. Maresca holds a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Providence College and the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. He is a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts.

Economic Events on July 30, 2012

At 10:30 AM Eastern time, the Dallas Fed Manufacturing Index for July will be released.  The consensus is that the index will be at 2.5, which would be a decrease of 3.3 points from the previous month.

Harry Dent’s Formula for Surviving the Great Bust Ahead

Harry Dent With a perfect storm brewing on the horizon, investors should be building their cash cache and running for cover, warns Harry Dent, author of The Great Crash Ahead. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, Dent explains how central bank stimulus programs are fighting a futile battle because a huge army of aging baby boomers has reached the stage in their economic lifecycles when they curb spending. How is Dent preparing for the gathering storm? Read on. . .

The Gold Report: Your considerable research over many years indicates that the size and age of its citizens drive a country’s economic growth or decline. Because people have predictable consumption patterns throughout life, you can predict well in advance national economic growth or decline. How does that work?

Harry Dent: We’ve identified a peak spending wave indicator that correlates strongly with the stock market and the economy. It doesn’t apply so much to emerging countries, where we look at urbanization rates, which greatly affect incomes, and workforce growth because emerging nations don’t have a middle-class curve where typical consumers earn $60,000 a year at the peak of their careers.

In developed countries, though—countries with higher-tech infrastructures and a solid middle class—this spending wave indicator peaks at around age 46. People slow in spending way ahead of retirement, from 46 on. That is basically when the average person’s kids are leaving the nest. In fact, the greatest slowing comes from age 50 on. That’s the correlation, that people earn and spend more money dramatically as they approach midlife. On average, they enter the workforce at about age 20, marry at 26, have their first child when they’re 28, and hit 46–50 when that child gets out of school. Then their spending drops like a rock. Part of that is because they’re saving for retirement but, more importantly, they don’t need bigger houses and don’t drive their cars nearly as much. It’s just a natural life cycle in developed countries. It’s the ultimate leading indicator.

We saw the spending slowdown we’re experiencing now coming 20-some years ago, when we came up with this tool. We said baby boomers’ spending would peak around 2007 and slow down from 2020–2023.

TGR: Is the pattern the same across the globe, or do slowdown years differ from country to country?

HD: There’s some degree of variation, but the post-World War II baby boom pretty much happened around the world. Birth rates in most developed countries peaked in the late 1950s to early 1960s, so the whole developed world is pretty much synched on this baby boom, all peaking together. Japan is the one exception, where births peaked twice, once in 1942 and again in 1949.

TGR: So you’ve gone back through history and now can predict that every 40 years or so a country’s economy slows as waves of babies come through. Is the age-related consumption pattern the only demographic you use to evaluate what influences economies?

HD: Another cycle comes into play as well. It’s an 80-year economic cycle consisting of two generational booms and busts, like the Bob Hope generation that drove the U.S. economy up from 1942–1968 and then down from 1969–1982, and then the baby boomers who drove it up again from 1983–2007 after that 46-year lag, and now down again from 2008–2023. Additionally, these boom-and-bust pairs go through a pattern we relate to the four seasons.

“We’ve identified a peak spending wave indicator that correlates strongly with the stock market and the economy.”

If you think of the consumer price index (CPI) in temperature terms, a high CPI is hot, or inflationary, and a low CPI is cold, or deflationary. A deflationary period or depression, as we’re going into now, is the winter season. A spring boom follows, with a new generational spending pattern and the modest inflation that comes with it.

In the summer, with that generation entering the workforce, inflation continues to rise. We do a lot of research to demonstrate that young people are inflationary. They have more to do with inflation than any other factor, and nobody has a clue of this in economics. The last summer in the U.S. occurred when the baby boomers entered the workforce in large numbers, basically from the late 1960s through the early 1980s.

The fall boom brings bubbles and the resulting expansion of debt. Stocks, real estate and so on bubble up and when that boom ends, those bubbles burst. Winter sets in again, with restructuring and deleveraging of debt, which create deflation.

The 1970s was a difficult recession time, but it was inflationary, not deflationary, and not similar to the downturn that the Federal Reserve is trying to prevent now. The Fed is actively and constantly inflating the economy to prevent deflation to avoid a replay of the Great Depression. But it won’t be able to hold it off indefinitely.

TGR: Let’s talk a bit about the debt issue.

HD: In the U.S., most people focus on government debt. Under George Bush, the national debt grew from $5 trillion (T) to $10T in 2000–2008. At the same time, the banking system, financial systems and shadow banking—in the private sector—created $22T in debt. That was the greatest debt bubble in history, and it occurred in developed countries all around the world. So we have this global debt crisis and this debt has to deleverage. Everybody is in too much debt—financial institutions, consumers, businesses and governments, with central banks propping them up and bailing them out. Obviously, this can’t go on forever.

If the demographics weren’t working against the Fed and the other central banks, it might be different. But they’re fighting a battle they can’t win because the baby boomers are working against them. How do you stimulate an economy when the largest part of its workforce, the aging baby boomers, wants to save and not spend, to pay down debt?

“How do you stimulate an economy when the largest part of the workforce, the aging baby boomers, wants to save and not spend, to pay down debt?”

That’s the problem. The money the Fed creates gooses up the markets, but doesn’t do much for the economy, and banks aren’t lending. It’s crystal clear in history. Every time you see a big debt bubble in a fall boom—as in the 1860s and 1870s—a depression follows. We saw this from 1873–1877 and into the early 1880s. We saw the next big bubble into the roaring 1920s, followed by the Great Depression and debt deleveraging after that. In short, debt bubbles ultimately burst and then deleverage. Deleveraging debt destroys money, so there’s less money in the system and it means deflation in prices.

That’s very important for investors to understand. In a deflationary crisis—whether in the 1930s or what started in 2008—everything goes down: commodities, stocks, real estate, even gold and silver in many cases. In deleveraging an asset bubble, all assets go down and there’s nowhere to hide. Investors have to be in the U.S. dollar and very safe bonds and cash and wait for the crash, and then buy at the bottom. That’s the trick. Cash is king—cash and cash flow.

In contrast, in an inflationary crisis such as the one we had in the 1970s, commodities, gold and silver were booming. Japan was in a positive demographic cycle. Emerging countries benefited. Real estate loves inflation. In that environment, a lot of things go up, but stocks and bonds go down. In this environment, though, there’s nowhere to hide.

So people just have to get out of the way. Even with all the stimulus, the Fed has no way to restore normalcy with this debt level and this demographic downturn. The stimulus has merely created bubbles in stocks and commodities, and commodities are already going down pretty fast. We think stocks are next, so we expect another stock crash within the next few years. And the next crash will be worse than in 2008–2009 because the Fed has pumped everything up and stretched the system to the max.

This is what happens in the winter season. It’s a survival-of-the-fittest struggle for businesses to see who will dominate their industries for decades to come. So it’s a huge payoff for the companies that simply survive and it deleverages the whole debt and asset cycle and brings things back to affordability. So it’s a difficult season, but it’s necessary and actually good in the long term. Lower prices in general will increase the standard of living.

The government is trying to skip winter. It keeps heating things up, pouring the money into the economy so the banks don’t deleverage debt and the banking system doesn’t collapse as it did in the 1930s. The truth is, it’s only keeping us in high debt and maintaining a bubble that’s not sustainable. Sooner or later, this stimulus will result in a crash that takes down the economy.

The top 10% of consumers are the only ones still spending. We know from demographics that wealthier people marry and have kids a little later. Their kids go to school a little longer, so their spending peaks four to five years after the average person’s. After these folks’ spending peaks, which will be by the end of this year, we’ll have a second demographic drag on the economy.

TGR: So we’re basically just getting into this 2008–2023 winter depression. How deep will the trough go? Will it bottom at the midway point? What should consumers expect over the next 20 years?

HD: A winter season lasts from 13 to 15 years or so. The worst collapses in stock prices and real estate hit when the banking system deleverages. In the 1930s, that happened early on. In this case, the government took a lesson from the 1930s and decided to keep pouring money into the banking system to prevent its meltdown. But it can’t be done. There’s a limit to how much you can stimulate. It’s like a drug. It takes more and more of the drug and it has less and less effect until it has almost no effect, and then the drug itself kills you.

We’re seeing that in Europe already. The last round of stimulus there—Qualitative Easing (QE) 2—was massive and came well after QE2 in the U.S., but Europe’s already back in trouble again and is having to implement all sorts of emergency procedures. There’s no bailing out Spain. It has one of the biggest real estate bubbles in the world and a rapidly aging population. The Spanish people won’t be buying housing for decades.

TGR: What do you see in terms of stocks?

HD: The worst is likely to hit in the next two years. It’s a matter of when the stimulus stops working or when governments throw in the towel. At some point, for example, German citizens may just say they won’t bail out another country. They’ve been doing it to protect exports and avoid defaults on all of the money they’ve loaned out already, but considering the demographics, it’s a losing game.

We’ve studied all of the major debt bubbles and depressions in history, and this one is different because Keynesian economics, which came out of the Great Depression, wasn’t adopted as economic policy until the 1970s recessions. So now, for the first time in history, central banks around the world—the European Central Bank (ECB), the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of China and the Bank of Japan—are actively fighting deflation. When banks start to deleverage or when deflation starts to step in, they just push money into the system. The question is: Do they lose control?

Japan has been through all of this before, but when it came into its crisis in the 1990s, it had budget and trade surpluses. The rest of the world was experiencing the greatest boom in history, which we’d predicted. There was mild inflationary pressure and everybody thought Japan was about to take over the world when it was about to collapse. We were among the few who predicted that ahead of time in the late 1980s.

Japan continued to push money into the system and never let private debt deleverage at all in either consumer or financial sectors. Japan is still carrying very high private debt, and its government debt has risen from 60% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 230% and still climbing. So Japan didn’t really go through a depression. It was more an on-and-off mild deflationary recession because the stimulus eased the pain. But now Japan’s debt is much larger than before the crisis and deleveraging still looms ahead. Japan has been a lost economy for 22 years now. Real estate is down 60% and stocks are still down nearly 80%, 22 years later.

Demographics say the Japanese economy will weaken even further after 2020. The interest on its debt will go up in a spring boom with rising inflation worldwide, and it will be bankrupt immediately because its debt is so high. It’s only because it’s borrowing at 1% or less that it can handle its deficits now. Sooner or later, this game has to end.

TGR: So Japan’s QE has raised government debt to more than 200% of GDP but only managed to postpone a depression?

HD: Yes, it kicked the can a couple of decades down the road. It’s like trying to resuscitate a patient with a defibrillator. You keep hitting the chest, clear, boom. At some point, the patient dies. If the bond markets allow the U.S. to keep putting in money like Japan, we’d end up with a balance sheet on the Fed at $5–6T and up with QE of $4–5T before this is over. We’ve only gone about $2T so far. The Fed stimulus pushes money into the banking system, but the banks don’t lend it to fuel economic growth. They cover their losses and reserves, and then turn around and reinvest the rest in government bonds and stocks. They’re speculating. The money ends up in the stock markets. It’s like crack in the markets, and the markets just want more crack. But the markets can’t continue to go up when demographic trends are pointing down.

TGR: Your earlier mention of losing control brings to mind the people of Greece out in the streets rioting because demands for further sacrifices and more fiscal austerity have become unbearable.

HD: It is true. One of our financial advisers who was there recently reported every third store is closed or boarded up. Greece is in a depression and Spain’s headed there. The ECB has already pumped $270 billion into Spain and Greece just to cover its bank runs, which may happen faster than the governments can fend them off. In the U.S., the vulnerability is much more in real estate, as in Spain. We have a backlog of close to 4 million foreclosures already in the system. At some point, the banks will realize that home prices are not coming back. That they haven’t come back in Japan after 21 years gives us a hint. But if the banks start dumping these millions of foreclosures that aren’t on the market, it would kill the housing market and trigger a bank crisis that the Fed couldn’t stop with stimulus.

China also is vulnerable. Exports, which drive most of its economy, are declining rapidly while government spending on vacant buildings and empty cities has created a real estate bubble. If that bubble begins to seriously break down, Chinese consumers with disposable income, the top 10% of the population, own the real estate that will lose its value.

TGR: A while ago, you said businesses that manage to survive the winter would dominate their industries for decades to follow. What advice do you have for those running companies to help them come out the other side of a depression?

HD: First, those who are running a company and thinking about retirement within five years should sell their companies and retire now. Those who want to keep their companies and hand them down to the next generation or continue to grow them should hunker down, cut costs, cut overhead and put off capital expenditures. Rent your building; don’t own it. Sell real estate. Sell marginal product lines. In fact, sell everything you don’t need. Do everything to raise cash because, as I said before, cash and cash flow are king. Be lean and mean. Office space, real estate, factories, warehouses, anything you want to invest in your company will be a lot cheaper after deleveraging. Even if your business weakens, if your competitors weaken more rapidly, you’re winning. At some point, a lot of your competition, just like a lot of banks, will fail.

“Investors should be looking to invest more in emerging countries because they’re going to outperform.”

We saw this phenomenon after the Great Depression. There was a big payoff for the companies that survived; they dominated their industries for decades to come. Everybody thinks the market leaders were born in the technology revolution in automobiles and electricity in the early 1900s and into the roaring ’20s. Certainly, the race was on then, but the shakeout of the Great Depression decided who was left standing. General Motors survived and absolutely dominated the automobile industry from the 1930s through the 1970s. In electronics, it was General Electric.

TGR: You’ve also emphasized the importance of cash and cash flow for investors, advising them to either exit the equity markets or greatly reduce their exposure to stocks.

HD: Yes. Take advantage of the fact that the Fed has revived stocks and sell when the market is high. Reinvest when the prices are low. Joseph Kennedy made his fortune in the early 1930s, getting out at the top of the market when his shoeshine boy was giving him advice. When stocks were down 87%, he was buying at $0.10–0.20 on the dollar.

TGR: What are you doing personally to preserve or grow your wealth during this winter?

HD: I moved from Miami to Tampa in 2005, at the top of the real estate bubble and I’ve been renting, so I avoided a huge loss. Real estate in my neighborhood is down about 50%, and probably will fall another 20–30% before it’s over. I’m just looking at investments to actually be short stocks. I’m looking at ProShares Ultra Short MSCI Europe (EPV), which is an exchange-traded fund (ETF) at two times short the MSCI Europe index. The ProShares UltraShort Financials ETF (SKF) is another good one, two times short financials, because the financials in Europe are tending to get hit the worst. I think there’s a rising chance in Europe in the next few months of either a mini-crash, about 20% off the top, or a major crash like 2008–2009, where Europe just blows up. One way or the other, you need to either be out of stocks or you need to bet on things going down.

TGR: Any other insights?

HD: We’re buying natural gas, which seems to be going up since it bottomed out at $2. We’re buying agricultural commodities because that’s the last thing to go down in demand, and emerging market demand is still strong. Apart from natural gas and agriculture, though, pretty much everything else we see going down.

TGR: What about gold?

HD: I think gold has another run in it. It’s trending down right now, but I’d expect gold to benefit from the early stage of this crisis. If we have one more big QE coming in the U.S. and Europe—especially in Europe—gold is likely to rally. We told people to sell silver when it hit $50/ounce (oz) in April of last year. Now we’re suggesting selling gold if we see a good rally, say, $2,000/oz or higher.

Ultimately, there’s a natural instinct to expect gold to go up in a crisis, but if you look at 2008, gold and silver went up in anticipation of a financial crisis. But when the crisis actually hit and debt started deleveraging and money supply started contracting, which happened in the second half of 2008 and early 2009, gold went down I think 32% and silver went down 50%.

TGR: Everything went down.

HD: Exactly. That’s the point. The only thing that went up was the U.S. Dollar Index and Treasury bonds. This time, I think Treasury bonds may turn around. People act as if German, U.S. bonds and United Kingdom bonds are risk free. They are not. These U.S. and UK governments are in terrible debt, and Germany is holding the bag for Europe. People are throwing money at negative yields just because they don’t know where else to go. A better bet might be to go long the dollar or, even better, short the euro. That would be a good hedge.

TGR: What’s the best investing advice you ever received, Harry?

HD: Basically, I think you have to think contrarian, because it’s just human nature for people to pile into something, especially in these bubbles we’ve seen. They pile into tech stocks or real estate, thinking they can’t go down, and then the bubbles burst. I learned early on to think contrary to the crowd, something like Joseph Kennedy. Right now, most investors think these markets can’t go down because the Fed won’t allow them to. They call it “the Bernanke Put.” Well, if everybody’s thinking that, I don’t think that.

TGR: Whom do you view as the best investors?

HD: The classic ones are Benjamin Graham back in the good old days and Warren Buffett these days, although I think Buffett’s off base now that he’s become a cheerleader for the U.S. government.

TGR: You’re speaking at the MoneyShow in San Francisco in late August. What major themes will you cover?

HD: Basically three things: debt, demographics and deflation. People who argue that hyperinflation is ahead are dead wrong. Japan had zero inflation for the last decade despite massively more QE than we’ve done relative to its economy. It would have been a deflation if it hadn’t stimulated so much and the world hadn’t been in an inflationary mode. Debt deleveraging leads to deflation, and aging societies are deflationary. Old people are deflationary, young people are inflationary. The inflation of the 1970s had nothing to do with monetary policy. It was the baby-boom generation partying in college, spending their parents’ money. It’s expensive to raise kids, who don’t contribute economically until they get into the productivity curve in the workforce. At that point, productivity drives down inflation.

TGR: Do you expect the U.S. to fare better than Europe over the next two decades because of the echo boom, as the millennial generation gets into a serious spending cycle?

HD: Yes. The echo boom kicks in from about 2023 forward in the U.S. and in a lot of countries. It’s nowhere near the size of the baby boom generation, but enough to create growth again. But there’s no echo boom in Southern Europe or in China, where the workforce will start shrinking like Japan’s after 2015. Japan’s little echo boom runs out by 2020, and because Japan never deleveraged its economy, it’s not even benefiting much from it.

But, yes, there should be a worldwide boom with the stronger developed countries—Northern Europe, North America and Australia—doing fairly well, though as I say, not as strong as the boom we saw in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Excluding the developed countries of East Asia—Japan, Korea, China—the emerging world will really dominate in terms of demographics and workforce growth. Investors should be looking to invest more in emerging countries because they’re going to outperform. I would look first at India and Southeast Asia.

TGR: Should we be doing that now?

HD: Not yet. I’d wait until after the shakeout. China’s slowdown is hurting emerging countries, which depend on exporting resources, and so are the collapsing commodity prices. By the way, the 29–30-year commodity cycle has nothing to do with the 40-year demographic cycle, but they happened to peak in the same timeframe, around 2007–2008.

TGR: Other than going to cash, what else should people be doing to prepare for the depression/deflationary period ahead?

HD: Cut expenses and high-interest debt. I wouldn’t cut a mortgage if I’m paying 4–5% tax deductible on it, but get rid of credit card debt with interest at 22%. Don’t make any big capital expenditures. Don’t buy a house and don’t let your kid buy a house. If you’re more aggressive, you can bet on markets going down. For example, you actually can make money in the downturn if you short the euro, European stocks and U.S. financial stocks. But for most people, it’s just better to be safe.

TGR: Easier said than done these days.

HD: Unfortunately, the government is making it very difficult. The stimulus programs are knocking down interest rates on safer, long-term bonds so people can’t get yield anymore. If they go after yield, if they rush into bonds, stocks, commodities or especially dividend-paying stocks—which are the most popular thing now—they’ll get creamed when the stock market crashes. The alternative is to give up the dividends and low yields. Just be safe. You’d be crazy to buy a 10-year Treasury at 1.4% yield or a 10-year bond at 1.3% yield. All the countries are going to be in trouble.

TGR: Thank you, Harry, for your time and your insights.

Harry Dent will be a keynote speaker at the upcoming MoneyShow in San Francisco on August 24–26, 2012. Click here to register for free.

Harry S. Dent, Jr. is founder and CEO of the economic research and forecasting organization that bears his name and publisher of the HS Economic Forecast and the HS Dent Perspective. During the early 1980s, while a strategy consultant for Fortune 100 companies and new ventures at Bain & Co., Dent recognized the force that baby boomers exerted on the trends of the time, which led to his development of The Dent Method, a long-term forecasting technique based on the study of and changes in demographic trends and their economic impact that financial advisers and individual investors use via Dent’s Monthly Economic Forecast, Economic Special Reports, Demographics School and The Financial Advisors Network. HS Dent also provides two newsletter services. Former CEO of several entrepreneurial growth companies and a new venture investor, Dent also is a sought-after speaker and best-selling author. Since 1988 he has been presenting to executives and investors around the world, appearing on Good Morning America, PBS, CNBC, CNN and FOX and featured in Barron’s, Investor’s Business Daily, Entrepreneur, Fortune, Success, US News and World Report, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, American Demographics, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, and Omni. Dent’s books include The Great Crash Ahead (2011), The Great Depression Ahead (2009), The Next Great Bubble Boom (2006), The Roaring 2000s Investor (1999), The Roaring 2000s (1998), The Great Jobs Ahead (1995), The Great Boom Ahead (1993) and Our Power to Predict (1989). Dent received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of South Carolina, graduating first in his class, and his Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar and was elected to the Century Club for leadership excellence.

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

The Root of the Problem

Here’s why behavioral economics is slow to take off:

More and more, I am thinking about this area in terms of the normative vision of the world it presupposes. Most amazingly, behavioral economists tend to accept the normative stance of neoclassical or standard economics (that is, the axioms of rationality). They “simply” do not believe that people behave in accordance with these axioms. Thus they find decisionmaking failure (akin to market failure). All sorts of state interventions may be warranted to correct for the suboptimalities that defective or biased decisions imply.

Ultimately, the fundamental problem with the underlying model upon which behavioral economics is that it assumes that value is objective. Why should anyone value long-term planning, good health, intellectual development, etc.? Sure, many people think this things are good, and the goodness of these things is generally supposed to be self-evident, but not all people will find these thing to be valuable.
As such, behavioral economics will be stunted until the leaders of the field realize that value is subjective and that most people don’t know why they make a good portion of their decisions. The theoretical human in their models bears no resemblance to real life human beings, and therefore their model will be unreliable as long as it continues to further this misconception.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Economic Events on July 27, 2012

At 8:30 AM Eastern time, the advance GDP report for the second quarter of 2012 will be announced.  The consensus is an increase of 1.2% in real GDP and an increase of 1.6% in the GDP price index.  The real GDP estimate is 0.8% lower than the final value for the first quarter of 2012, and the GDP price index is 0.4% lower.

At 9:55 AM Eastern time, Consumer Sentiment for the second half of July will be announced.  The consensus is that the index will be at 72.0, which is the same as the value reported in the first half of the month.

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

Automation and Guaranteed Minimum Income

Here’s a comment Glowing Face Man left on a blog post titled “It’s No Coincidence”:

You (and the supermajority of pundits) labor under the false assumption that everybody needs jobs, that a healthy economy involves 90%+ employment. This simply is not consistent with the reality of automation, it will become less and less consistent in coming decades. Immigration and outsourcing are small factors next to automation. Within a couple generations, almost everything is going to be automated, and a realistically healthy economy would have single-digit EMployment, rather than UNemployment. The proper fix is a completely unconditional universal guaranteed basic income.

I’ll be upfront about my biases as they relate to this subject. First, as a Christian, I believe that man was created by God to work, and therefore it is wholly unnatural for man to not work, and therefore man will always need to have a way of working. I also believe that the unemployment statistics are a useful—though imperfect—barometer of whether people are actually working, as would natural for them. There are obviously some differences between the ideal of work and its reality, but they can be ignored for the time being.
Now, as to the topic at hand, it is entirely true that I assume that a healthy economy is one where everyone works. But it is also true that those who argue for complete automation are making some assumptions of their own. In many ways, the proponents of a guaranteed minimum on the basis of the automation of production (which renders human labor unnecessary) are making several assumptions of their own, some of which may or may not turn out to occur.
The first and most obvious assumption is that the current trend towards automation will actually continue. If the business cycle is any indication, it is not only possible that the trend of automation ceases at some point in the future, it is likely. Just as innovations in papyrus production were superseded by paper production, which was then superseded by the various digital formats, so too is it possible that the current trend towards automation may be superseded by something else altogether.
A second assumption is that advances in technology won’t hit a serious point of diminishing returns. Imagine, for example, the sheer amount of technology that would be necessary to automate, say, apple picking or painting houses. It certainly possible that these activities could be automated (i.e. it is within the realm of technical feasibility). But it is not necessarily possible that it would be worth the R&D costs to automate these things. And there are thousands of more activities similar to these that would have generally high costs of development.
A third assumption is that technology will able to interface with humans in such a way as to handle the vagaries and nuances of human interaction. Which is to say, it is assumed that technology will be able to, say, address customer complaints (or, more broadly, customer emotions).
A fourth assumption, as it relates to the guaranteed minimum income, is that human ingenuity will not spread beyond its current state. By this I mean that it is assumed that humans will not use the eventual automation of production as the foundation for expanding production into new, uncharted territory. Stated another way, the automation of production could enable people to simply open up new frontiers of innovation and production that are not directly based on automation (i.e. open up another level of goods).
A fifth assumption is that the economy will not collapse and undo any of the current technological advances we currently enjoy. Massive economic and cultural collapses usually correlate to technological collapses as well. See the collapse of the Roman Empire for an example. See also Neurodiversity for an in-depth look at the subject.
A sixth assumption is that status-seeking will no longer exist. Quite simply, automation should lead to decreasing prices in what were once luxury goods (see: the costs of silk stockings after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). Things that were once the province of the wealthy will become available to everyone. As such, wealthy status-seekers will need to find a new way to demonstrate value, which simply turn into direct displays of controlling labor (the current model is an indirect display of controlling labor). Alternatively, the market could invert back to increased demand for direct craftsmanship, like that which was once seen prior to the Industrial Revolution (Etsy seems to be an indication of this trend). This could be easily accomplished with increasingly user-friendly CADs and 3D printers.
A seventh assumption is that human interaction won’t become an economic good. If prostitution is any indication, there is no substitute for another human being. Human nature, generally being a constant, suggests that there might always be demand for other people’s time, and might lead to people getting paid for it, which is simply a higher-order form of employment.
An eighth assumption is that technology will develop to the point where only a few people are needed to manage it. Also, in keeping with this, it is assumed that GUIs won’t be dumbed-down enough to the point where non-engineers can manage them. Given the massive amount of IT support needed to maintain this level of technology, it seems reasonable to conclude that increases in the ubiquity of technology will drive demand for IT, particularly as technology handles increasingly complex tasks. Now, in response, the UIs of technology should dumb down to the point where non-engineers can solve basic problems The cumulative effect of this will be an increase in demand for IT support while simultaneously enabling growth in the pool of potential labor candidates in this field.
As can be seen, there are a myriad of conditions necessary to see the complete automation of production. It is certainly possible that all of them can be met; I will leave it to the reader to determine whether it is likely and whether, by extension, a guaranteed minimum income will be necessary.