'Mania' in Junior Mining Stocks Predicted: Fayyaz Alimohamed

Fayyaz  Alimohamed Fayyaz Alimohamed, CEO of Altair Ventures Inc. and publisher of the Acamar Journal, offers historical perspective and predictions on the global economic crisis. In this exclusive Gold Report interview, he foresees a “mania” in junior mining stocks and recommends holding physical gold outside the banking system as a safety net.


The Gold Report: Fayyaz, in June 2008, using readily available economic data, you wrote that the global economy was on the verge of financial collapse. What do those sources tell you about where the global economy is headed today?

Fayyaz Alimohamed: In November 2006, I predicted that the U.S. was headed into a recession. Seven months later, the Bear Stearns funds cracked, beginning the crisis. By June 2008 it was obvious to me that the crisis would escalate into a crash.

Today, the U.S. cannot meet its gargantuan future unfunded liabilities. Europe and Japan face debt levels that ensure eventual sovereign debt defaults and declining standards of living. There is potential for all of this unwinding to seriously affect an entire generation.

These economies cannot grow their way out of their problems and the cuts needed to balance budgets would create massive social turmoil because the cuts themselves would lead to sharp drops in gross domestic product, creating vicious negative spirals. The current solution being utilized is more debt and quantitative easing. That can only keep things afloat until it can’t anymore. I would say that we will have the next major crisis within the next two years.

TGR: I would like to flesh that out a bit. What do you believe will trigger the next crisis?

FA: Genuine reform has not been implemented. This crisis was caused by unprecedented levels of consumer and corporate debt and Wall Street greed. When the crisis happened, government rescued distressed debt by massively increasing its own debt. For example, the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are using their balance sheets at about a 30:1 leverage. This is the same sort of leverage that Wall Street banks had recklessly indulged in. When government debt was substituted for corporate and consumer debt, the whole system rolled over into a much more dangerous phase.

TGR: Do you think the European debt crisis will remain the dominant theme in 2012 or will other themes take center stage?

FA: The European crisis is simply a proxy for a global debt crisis. It happens to be focused on Europe because Germany has not been as eager as the Federal Reserve to print money. Germany remembers the hyperinflation of 1924, when unbridled money creation led to prices doubling every two days.

Today, governments have a preponderant influence on the economy, while large corporations, through lobbying, have inordinate influence over the government, to the detriment of other stakeholders. As the danger of a deflationary depression increases, governments are attempting to reinflate the economy; they may well overreach and create hyperinflation.

Thus, the broadest theme by far is debt and the reaction to debt. We just saw France’s debt downgraded and a negative watch put on the European Financial Stability Facility. This negative spiral will continue. Even though the U.S. has tepid signs of economic growth, it is at the cost of enormous amounts of stimulus being put into the economy.

Given that the U.S. and Europe are its two largest export markets, China also is headed for a hard landing unless it can increase internal consumption substantially.

TGR: Much of the discussion of the European crisis has centered on Greece. But a recent auction of six-month Italian bonds was priced at an interest rate of 6.5%—the highest rate of a bond auction since Italy joined the Eurozone 13 years ago. What do you make of that?

FA: In literature, readers are invited to enter into a “suspension of disbelief” to go along with the story, even if implausible. Before the 2008 crisis, that was the mindset of investors. Now they want to believe that governments can solve these problems.

Greece was not the primary cause of the European crisis. It was caused by German, French and U.S. banks. These banks are all insolvent if they were to mark their assets to market and not to theoretical models. But, we are suspending disbelief because we all have skin in the game and need things to work out.

The drive for austerity ensures that Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIIGS) will continue to see their economies shrink, leading to lower tax revenues and the continued inability to meet budget targets, which will require larger debt relief. It is a vicious downward spiral that will lead to declining standards of living.

Greece, Portugal and Ireland would be much better off leaving the EU, defaulting on their debts and devaluing their currencies. That is a time-honored tradition. After some pain things will work out, as they did in Argentina and Russia in the 1990s.

Investors want to believe that heavily indebted countries can solve the problems of other heavily indebted countries; that an insolvent banking system can be rescued by governments through more debt issuance and debt monetization.

TGR: The European Central Bank has floated the idea of euro bonds, backed by all 17 members of the Eurozone, as a solution to this problem. But Germany does not want to go down that path unless the indebted countries adopt more severe austerity measures. Do you think we’ll ever see euro bonds?

FA: We are really into the realm of absurdity. For example, the European Financial Stability Facility is a private company authorized to borrow €450 billion (B) from the private sector backed by a guarantee from all the EU members who are already heavily in debt and being downgraded periodically. One proposal I saw was that it would use the €440B of debt as collateral to borrow another €1–2 trillion of debt to lend to the PIIGS!

Can this type of thinking ever end well?

As Europe enters a recession, the problems will only get worse. Euro bonds issued by indebted countries just mean France and Germany are putting their own balance sheets at risk. It may provide time, but it does not solve the problem. The question is, should they bailout the PIIGS or take the same money and bailout their own banks? There are no good solutions.

A final thought on yields: when I studied economics we were taught that U.S. Treasuries were the risk-free asset to be used as an absolute benchmark. Given the recent downgrade and outlook, perhaps the economics profession should start looking for another risk-free benchmark, just as the U.S. dollar replaced the pound sterling.

TGR: Given all of this, how are you protecting yourself?

FA: One of the primary measures of protection is a healthy cash balance. You have to be in a position where you are able to ride out any crisis and also to take advantage of valuations in case of a crisis. If the crisis is as bad as I think it will be, you will be able to find and acquire assets at generationally low prices.

The other way to protect yourself is to invest in precious metals. I believe precious metals will do well whether we continue to stagnate or actually see another crisis. I think silver and gold equities will do very well in the long run.

TGR: Investors have been seeking greater security for at least seven months. How long do you think that risk-off sentiment will last?

FA: Brian, U.S. domestic stock funds have seen net redemptions for five straight years. Due to negative real interest rates, equities are undervalued in historical terms. This is tempered by the dangerous, rising systematic risk. Fund managers are paid to perform or else they face redemptions. So, the bias is for stocks to rally as we are seeing now, unless the second phase of the crisis clearly emerges, which in my opinion is inevitable.

Ironically, in another crisis, governments will likely turn to quantitative easing with a vengeance, which means that, despite a crisis in sovereign debt, we will see a substantial rally in commodities, particularly gold and equities, as substantial sums of newly created money finds its way into the system and money leaves the bond markets. You may find prices rising while the economy is being undermined.

TGR: Fayyaz, your background is in insurance and finance, how did you find your way into the gold and silver space?

FA: From 2001 onward, I realized that the U.S. seemed to lack the political will to deal with its increasing levels of budget and trade deficits. In fact, the Fed was creating asset bubbles that were bound to end badly. At the same time, I knew from history that fiat money generally ends badly, starting with Kublai Khan. I came to anticipate the decline of the U.S. dollar and the rise of gold. I believe that the price of gold will be much higher in the coming years and that gold will become part of the monetary system in some capacity.

Gold is interesting in another way. Throughout history booms have been localized geographically. As an example, the average Canadian investor is unlikely to invest in, say, Argentinian real estate or in its stock market even if they are booming. The Internet bubble was the first time that a global audience became aware of an asset category that was rising dramatically, ironically thanks to the Internet itself. But you could not participate unless you had a U.S. brokerage account. Gold is the first truly global asset boom that investors at all levels can participate in. Today investors are more savvy and more heavily invested across markets and categories but gold is fundamentally money and all investors and savers can buy it. Local yet global.

TGR: Investors also have different tools.

FA: That’s right. They can do a lot of research. They have a lot more liquidity. The potential impact on the market for gold as an asset class is phenomenal. It appeals to all levels of investors. Someone buying a few grams of gold in China creates demand that directly helps the value of your gold holdings. I mean, how many people sleep with a barrel of oil tucked under their mattress?

TGR: Not if you could help it.

FA: Historically, gold and silver equities leveraged the returns on gold. In 2011, mining companies were producing gold at an average cash cost just under $600/ounce (oz) and were getting about $1,600/oz in revenue. Cash flows are very impressive and price earnings are healthy. Mining companies continue to buy juniors with good assets, especially at these low share-price values. I moved into the sector to take advantage of this bull market in gold. And, I believe we will see a mania in junior mining stocks before this is over.

TGR: And, when will that be?

FA: I think we will see this happen within the next two years as people begin to realize that solutions to the global economic situation are not forthcoming. There will be more and more nervousness and gold will find a larger and larger audience.

We now have a situation where central banks, which were net sellers of gold for 20 years, became net buyers in 2009 and are accelerating their buying programs. We are seeing tremendous support for gold from central banks, institutional and retail investors across the world.

TGR: Do you have positions in any gold and silver juniors?

FA: Yes, one is Colombia Crest Gold Corp. (CLB:TSX.V; EAT:FSE). This company has a huge land package in a prolific gold belt, surrounded by several large deposits including Sunward Resources Ltd.’s (SWD:TSX.V) 8 Moz Titiribi project. IAMGOLD Corp (IMG:TSX: IAG:NYSE) took a 19.9% stake in October 2011, which validates Colombia Crest’s exploration program. With many large, prolific gold targets, the company will commence a 5,000m drill program next month. It also has a high-grade gold resource in Bolivia, a $25 million (M) market cap and $6M in cash. There is good upside potential as the company gets decent drill results.

TGR: Is there one project that will attract notice to Colombia Crest Gold?

FA: It has two projects in Colombia called Venecia and Fredonia.

TGR: And are they underground mine systems or bulk tonnage targets?

FA: I think Colombia Crest has a number of prolific targets. Some will be potential heap leachable targets and others are underground and, therefore, higher grade. So, the company has a dual approach in the Antioquia Province.

TGR: As far as management goes, are there people onboard that you are confident in?

FA: I mostly talk to Hans Rasmussen, the president and CEO. He strikes me as being very focused. He is a geologist and geophysicist and has worked with a number of senior companies. He was brought in by a group of investors to sort out various issues and he created the opportunity in Colombia. Rasmussen is the kind of person that you can have confidence in.

TGR: Do you have another junior name?

FA: I would also mention Coral Gold Resources Ltd. (CLH:TSX.V) with a 3.4 million ounce (Moz) Inferred resource. Its Robertson property in Nevada sits adjacent to Barrick Gold Corp.’s (ABX:TSX; ABX:NYSE) 14 Moz Cortez Pipeline mine, which produces gold at a cash cost of $312/oz. The preliminary economic assessment just came out, showing a net present value at a 5% discount at $1,500/oz gold of $147M for just three of its multiple zones. Its market cap is about $15M. Coral is a natural takeover target. I believe there is good value here for a patient investor.

TGR: Coral has not put out any news since February 2011. The lack of news for almost a year has done nothing but erode shareholder confidence. What is the problem?

FA: From what I understand, unlike nearby exploration companies, Coral has had its mine for a couple of decades and is a past producer. The company was given some very rigorous regulatory environmental conditions to meet regarding migratory patterns of birds and insects and such. Coral had to study these for a given period of time, which delayed its drilling permit. I think that situation is now on the verge of being resolved.

If that happens, Coral has the cash and is ready to drill. You should see movement in terms of activity and, potentially, share price appreciation.

TGR: Let’s move to silver. Great Panther Silver Ltd. (GPR:TSX; GPL:NYSE.A) is led by Bob Archer, a real veteran. The company is producing from its Guanajuato mine in Mexico. In 2012, the company plans to produce 1.72 Moz silver, up from 1.5 Moz last year. It also expects to produce 10–11 thousand ounces (Koz) gold, up from 7.8 Koz in 2011. That news, although good, was not met with much enthusiasm from the market. What are your thoughts?

FA: I think a 20% year-over-year increase is very healthy for any producer. The company’s profit margins are excellent. It has a 30% net margin for the year to date. So, it should generate very decent cash flows going forward. Great Panther has $40M in the bank. It is growing the resource at the San Ignacio project, is looking for acquisitions and it is mining a recently discovered high-grade zone in Cata.

Overall, the junior sector has stagnated over the last few months and I think Great Panther has just been part of that process.

TGR: What are your thoughts on what Bob Archer has done there?

FA: I think Bob has delivered tremendous value for shareholders. He is very competent and is a man of integrity. I think his share price is closely linked to the price of silver, which is generally true for most silver producers. Guanajuato has a rich history. It was mined by the Spaniards and has been in production for 400 years. It was once considered the richest silver mine in the world. Bob has taken it from when silver was down to $4/oz, resurrected it, capitalized it, built out infrastructure and delivered tremendous value.

TGR: In your time in this space, what have you learned that the average retail investor ought to know?

FA: This is a very volatile sector, subject to investors jumping in when there is a bullish trend and a lot of enthusiasm, and those same investors not wanting any part of equities when there’s a pullback in prices.

Given the overall increase in volatility in the markets, investors really should take a look at gold and silver. If they are bullish, any pullbacks in the commodity prices or in the associated equities should be seen as buying opportunities. When there is a lot of enthusiasm, it should be seen as creating selling opportunities.

You also have to have physical gold and silver in your possession. We learned a lesson with MF Global. We saw $1B of segregated funds in clients’ accounts vanish. My understanding is that some of those funds were comingled and used to settle MF Global’s liabilities to other financial institutions. There is this whole issue of counter-party risk, which gold does not have. That should be a cautionary reminder to people. You need to have physical cash balances. You need to have physical gold and silver outside of the banking system as a safety net because, as Warren Buffet said, we are in uncharted waters now.

TGR: You grew up in Pakistan, where gold is part of the culture, given as gifts at weddings and such. Do you think you would have that same opinion about physical gold as a personal asset if you had grown up somewhere else?

FA: Not in my case. I had no involvement or affinity with gold. I was a finance professional. My involvement with the gold sector is purely intellectually driven, from looking at trends within the macro economy and realizing that gold and silver really are hedges against turmoil and currency debasement.

But that is a very good question and it points up the importance of watching out for biases in the commentaries that you read. People have vested interests and they do tend to have agendas, both in the mainstream media and elsewhere. For your own protection, you need to be sensitive to those influences and to study track records at key inflection points before relying on other people’s judgment.

TGR: Fayyaz, thank you for your time and your insights.

Fayyaz Alimohamed is president, CEO and director of Altair Ventures Inc. and publisher of the Acamar Journal. He has over 20 years of experience in investment management, finance and consultancy. He previously worked at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Financial and Management Services Ltd. (a management consultancy set up by Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd. and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.) and as the chief financial officer of the Key Capital Group before becoming director of investments for the Cupola Group, a large operating and investment conglomerate based in Dubai. He holds a Bachelor of Science (Honors) degree in economics from the London School of Economics, University of London, and is a Certified General Accountant (CGA).

Markets Likely to Applaud Irish Bailout Terms

On Monday, markets will likely applaud the 85 billion euro bail-out of the Irish economy from the International Monetary Fund and European Union financing.

Over the weekend, the rescue package was approved at a meeting of European Union finance ministers in Brussels.

The overall financing includes up to 35 billion euro to support the Irish banking system – 10 billion euro of which will likely be needed immediately.

The Irish government applied for the loan last Sunday when it conceded the bank crisis was too big for the country to handle on its own.

IMF managers and directors say the Irish authorities propose “a clear and realistic package of policies to restore Ireland’s banking system to health.” The program and funding will put its public finances on a sound footing, “and bring Ireland’s economy back on track.”

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

What is the role of animal spirits in the political sphere in producing economic crises?

“Conventional economic theories exclude the changing thought patterns and modes of doing business that bring on a crisis. They even exclude the loss of trust and confidence. They exclude the sense of fairness that inhibits the wage and price flexibility that could possibly stabilize an economy. They exclude the role of corruption and the sale of bad products in booms, and the role of their revelation when the bubbles burst. They also exclude the role of stories that interpret the economy. All of these exclusions from conventional explanations of how the economy behaves were responsible for the suspension of disbelief that led up to the current crisis” (George Akerlof and Robert Shiller, “Animal Spirits”, 2009, p 167).

I don’t have many problems with the argument of Akerlof and Shiller (A & S) that animal spirits play an important role in economic crises. I think they attempt to carry their argument too far; it seems to me that the economic system tends to be self-equilibrating despite notions of fairness and money illusion. But I accept that when there is high leverage in the system (i.e. high levels of debt relative to equity) it is a lot more vulnerable to economic crises than when there is low leverage. I also accept that changes in confidence help explain why leverage fluctuates. Stories that interpret the economy seem to have a big role in determining confidence. A few years ago it was common to hear the story that the risks involved in lending on housing were minimal – even “as safe as houses”. Now the story we hear is that investment in government-backed securities offers “a safe harbour”.

The main problem I have with this book is its failure to recognize that animal spirits also play a role in politics. In fact, as Arnold Kling and Clive Crook have pointed out, A & S fail to mention public choice theory. Instead, their model of government is what Kling describes as the “shockingly naive metaphor of a parent”. In their preface, A & S write:

“The proper role of the government, like the proper role of the advice-book parent, is to…give full rein to the creativity of capitalism. But it should also countervail the excesses that occur because of our animal spirits.”

Crook writes: “This is an unappealing analogy. I would sooner take up arms against a government that saw me as a child than vote for it.”

It seems to me that the most important animal spirit that Akerlof and Shiller fail to mention is the anti-market bias, stemming from an excessive desire for security and stability, which comes to the surface whenever a financial crisis threatens to occur. Rather than allowing the normal process of liquidation to occur when large financial institutions fail, the animal spirits that rule the political domain say that everything must be done to “keep the first domino from falling” (as A & S advocate on page 85).

When viewed in isolation, the bail-out of each institution seems like cheap insurance to government policy advisors. The problem is that a series of bail-outs tends to generate excessive confidence in central banks and governments. If you are lending money to a company that you expect to be backed by government, then you are not going to be too worried if the salary packages of the executives of that company give them incentives to take excessive risks. Creditors might not be surprised if the company gets into financial difficulty, but they will be shocked if it isn’t rescued by government.

From the A & S perspective the current crisis occurred not because parents encouraged the kids to act unwisely by incurring gambling debts , but because the parents decided to let one of their wayward children file for bankruptcy. That unsettled the creditors, so the parents lost their nerve and decided to pay all the kids’ debts. At this stage the lesson that the parents seem to have learned from this is that the kids need more parental supervision to make sure that their animal spirits don’t ever get out of control again. How will the kids respond? Will they leave home to get away from this parental supervision? Or will their animal spirits lead them to pretend to be good for a while in order to re-establish cosy relationships with their parents?

The End Of Fractional Reserve Banking?

United States Treasury Notes were recently auctioned off for a yield of 0%. That means that very smart people running mutual funds, brokerage houses and other very large organizations were willing to invest lots of money and get nothing in return other than a return of their principal. We can probably rule out the motives of benevolence or Christmas spirit. There must be some other reason.

Those smart people are investment managers, who’s job it is to make money for the organizations through their investing. With the extreme volatility of the stock market, those people would rather sit on their cash than risk it on companies that will likely lose a significant portion of their share value. That is not irrational. However, considering the fact that there are brokerage commissions and fees involved in buying treasury notes, those managers are losing money for their organizations by investing at 0%. Why would they not just keep their cash at 0% and not pay the commissions? It doesn’t seem to make sense.

An organization that has $100 million of cash doesn’t have a room full of twenty dollar bills. They have a bank account with some accounting entries. With all of the turmoil in the banking industry, it is not unreasonable for these money managers to feel a little queasy about leaving that money in a bank. FDIC deposit insurance only covers the first $250,000. The other $99,750,000 is unsecured. If the bank goes belly up, they may or may not get all of their money back, and if they do, they have no idea how long they would have to wait.

With that in mind, it makes sense that large scale investors would rather own treasury notes that appear to have a high level of safety, even if they lose a little money on the transaction. It sounds perverse, doesn’t it? If you understand fractional reserve banking, you can understand why it actually is so perverse.

When you put your money in a checking account at a bank, you do so with the understanding that it is still all your money. You have a right to withdraw it in any amount, at any time. This is opposed to investing in a Certificate of Deposit at the same bank. With the CD, you are actually loaning the bank your money. You do not have a right to withdraw it without penalty before the due date.

Banks have figured out that, on average, their depositors will not be withdrawing all of their money. Only a fairly small fraction will be taken on a given day. The bankers believe that all of that money should not be just sitting around collecting dust. They say “Someone should be making money from it, it might as well be me.” So they take a portion of that money and lend it out to other customers at interest to be paid over time. That’s pretty clever. In any other setting, that is called embezzlement, but in banking it is called generally accepted business practice.

At any point in time, every bank is technically bankrupt. Most of its liabilities, the deposits due to customers, are very short term. Most of its assets are very long term, such as loans. Mortgages that a bank lends out for 30 years are balanced by a checking deposit that is due today. In normal times it is not an issue because people are pretty predictable. In abnormal times, like now, people aren’t so predictable. They may have very valid reasons for pulling out their cash, such as believing that the bankers won’t have their money when they need it.

Unfortunately, that is a very valid concern. The underlying problem has nothing to do with market psychology or confidence or any such nonsense. The core issue is that, due to the bank’s systematic embezzlement, they do not have the cash available to meet their contractual obligations.

Using taxpayer money and the FDIC to secure a portion of deposits against banker fraud is not the solution to the problem. The solution is not to use billions, or even trillions, of taxpayer dollars to bail out banks who did stupid things with the money they embezzled. The solution is to make the embezzlement illegal, to stop the fraud.

The fractional reserve system allows banks to leverage reserves and rapidly expand money and credit. We witnessed that with the current housing bubble, the 1990’s stock bubble and every other bubble market before that. Rapid credit expansion is a two edged sword. Once the bubble bursts, there is a rapid deflation as irresponsible loans go bad and reserves diminish. They can’t hide the embezzlement in the downside of the bubble, because people want their deposits and banks don’t have them to give.

There is a very simple way to prevent future bubbles and economic crises, or at least minimize them. If banks were forced to live by the laws that everyone else must live by, bank runs would be very unlikely, even in the worst economic conditions. People could always get their money because it would always be there. There is a fairly simple cause and effect relationship. A simple policy change of requiring 100% reserves for all banks would prevent a meltdown like we are suffering through today.

It would be a fairly easy policy to implement, if there was the political will to do so. Given that the banking industry is one of the most wealthy and powerful lobbyists in Washington, that is not likely until taxpayers and voters connect the dots, and get fed up with footing the bill and bearing all the pain.