The Gold Report: Recent headlines continue to focus on the debt crisis in Europe as more countries are having their debt downgraded. Greg, you have diagnosed the problem as credit addiction and said that the European Union won’t be able to recover until leaders take painful measures necessary to kick their addiction. What does this mean for commodities and commodity equities?

Greg Weldon: It’s critical for asset prices across the globe. It is a debt addiction, debt refinancing and deficit financing problem, not only in Europe, but also in the U.S. and Japan. Austerity is the real answer to the fact that there is too much debt, and austerity measures in an economic sense are not positive.

My fear is that it’s going to be very difficult to see how economies in Europe, the U.S. and Japan can stand on their own two feet without the assistance of central banks debasing currency through debt monetization. I liken it to filling the sink halfway up with water and pulling the plug out of the drain. Of course, the water level will recede unless you turn the faucet on and start more water pouring into the sink. The level of water represents asset prices, the water flowing out of the faucet represents liquidity provided by global central banks and the drain represents the real macro economy, which has not been fixed.

At the end of the second round of qualitative easing, when the Fed shut off the faucet, the water level (asset prices) started to go down. But now the water is running again—particularly with some of the measures instituted by the European Central Bank, with its three-year loan program, the federal liquidity swaps and the back-ended way that it’s managed to involve the International Monetary Fund.

The problem with all of this is it does nothing to fix the underlying problem, which is too much debt. This is not sustainable. Central banks turning on the water faucet is good for asset prices. The real solutions of fiscal austerity, which are probably not palatable to most politicians in Europe, are the real struggle as we go forward. This problem is not going to go away.

TGR: Grant, in your Things That Make You Go Hmmm…. newsletter, you painted a picture of the final implosion of the euro and U.S. municipal bond meltdown. What would this mean for resource stocks?

Grant Williams: That was part of a prediction piece that I wrote at the end of 2011. It was semi-tongue-in-cheek. My contention was that as volatile as 2011 played out, we didn’t actually get any resolution. And it feels like 2012 will be the year those resolutions start to take place. One of the primary ones is the European situation. A Greek deal to solve the crisis seems to constantly be on the horizon, but they can’t seem to come up with an absolute solution to the public sector involvement haircut issue. When they do, I think it’s going to be the start of a whole slew of legal action to try and either trigger credit default swaps or negate any haircut from those who don’t want to sign up. Greece has a big refinancing coming up in March. It has to raise a little over €14 billion (B), and between now and then it somehow has to get a $130B loan package approved from the Troika. It is very hard to see how Europe can just keep pumping money into Greece. It’s very likely we’ll see Greece exit the Eurozone then, and that’s going to focus everyone’s attention on Portugal. I think Italy will be OK. Spain worries me more than Italy because the economy there structurally is in far worse shape. But if a bunch of countries pull out, that leaves the question of how people unwind any obligations they have in the current euro construct.

What this means for commodities is that the money-printing presses are going to be turned up to the max again. Despite adamant claims from politicians to the contrary, money printing—even if by another name—will have to be implemented at a magnitude much, much higher than ever before to meet current demands. Cash is being given to banks basically for free through the long-term refinancing operation on the quid pro quo that the money finds its way back into the government bond market. The problem is that a lot of this money is going to leak out somewhere other than where it is intended and I suspect it’s going to leak into commodities and equities. We are going to see stock markets float higher, not necessarily on particularly good numbers from corporates, but from the simple dynamic of a lot of freshly printed money looking for a home. We have already seen it in gold and silver this year. They both had big corrections in December, but they are two of the best performing assets of the year so far and I suspect the more money they print this year, the faster these things are going to go up.

People are starting to understand that deflation is not an option for the central banks. Once people realize that if we get a brief period of deflation, it will be fought aggressively with inflation, they will start to look past any deflationary period and position themselves for inflation. That is going to mean higher prices in commodities.

TGR: How high could gold and silver go in 2012?

GWilliams: I think gold trades at $2,200 an ounce (oz) this year. I think silver trades at possibly $60/oz this year, but they’re really just stepping stones on the way to higher ground. This 11-year ascent in both precious metals is only going to change when central bank policy surrounding it changes. I just don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future until they get this debt problem under control.

We are going to see periods with crazy spikes. We are going to see corrections. Some will view this as a collapse but the difference between a correction and a collapse is your entry price. If you bought gold at $700/oz a few years ago and you watched it go from $1,900/oz to $1,500/oz in December, that’s a correction. If you bought it at $1,900/oz, it’s a collapse. I think it’s important to try and take a longer view. The rationale for owning gold and silver is still in place. In a world of printing presses and fiat currencies, no one can manufacture gold and silver out of thin air. I think they are both going to go a lot higher.

TGR: Greg, what are your predictions for 2012?

GWeldon: There is a disconnect in the markets. Currencies really aren’t moving much either. The dollar hasn’t appreciated much. This is why gold is stuck in this range, capped just above $1,700/oz, with potential downside toward $1,300/oz. People are liquidating commodities. My sense is that there is more weakness to come in H112. Commodity prices in Q411 have already come down significantly, pumping some relief into margins. There is a little window of opportunity here where equities and some of the commodities markets could have some upside.

Debt could become an issue again in H212 depending on how central banks deal with that and whether we have a big downturn again in the stock and commodity markets. My longer term view is that when push comes to shove and central banks are staring into the abyss of a potential debt deflation, they will choose to reflate at whatever cost. That is bullish for gold long term. If banks can find the political will to do it, there will be significantly higher prices for commodities across the board in the long term.

China, in particular, has a bullish dynamic. Certain commodities, such as copper, have their own supply-demand dynamics that are detached from the dollar and monetary policies. The Chinese imported copper at a record high in December. Copper stocks on the London Metal Exchange have fallen by close to 30% since October. Copper is one of these commodities that has upside potential regardless of what the dollar is doing.

TGR: Grant, you are based in Singapore. There was a lot of talk at the last Cambridge House Conference in Vancouver about whether China is growing, shrinking, landing hard or soft. What impact will China have on commodities and equities around the world?

GWilliams: China faces a lot of problems. A lot of people think it is in for a hard landing. It is always difficult to believe official Chinese statistics, but the message that the Chinese government is sending through those numbers can be useful. For example, the Chinese growth numbers last week showed an 8.9% increase in gross domestic product. In a world of basically zero growth, that’s a pretty good number, but it’s not the double-digit number we’ve been conditioned to expect from China. Whether it was true or not, it shows that the government is saying: things are OK. We are on top of this, we’re in control. We are not going to slow to zero; we’re just going to grow a little bit slower. The big problem China has is inflation. Roaring food inflation in a society in which half the population lives in relative poverty in rural areas would be a big issue. A lot of people talk about property bubbles—and there are definitely bubbles in Chinese property—but as long as the government can keep people fed, it is going to find a way to get through this—at least for now.

China also has vast currency reserves. The Chinese absolutely understand that paper currency is being devalued incredibly quickly. So, until someone puts a sell-by date on copper and iron ore, it will keep stockpiling the stuff because it will need these commodities to continue growing. China will continue to swap paper money for commodities. The Chinese are bringing gold into the country as fast as they possibly can. Gold is in the DNA here in Asia. It doesn’t take an awful lot to persuade the public to own gold.

TGR: Greg, in your book, Gold Trading Boot Camp, you said gold is at the top of the macro-monetary pyramid. Why does it hold such an important position?

GWeldon: It is a rare and unique mineral that has provided a store of value for centuries that is not backed by any government. It is not subject to anyone’s IOU. Gold stands alone in the level of security it creates in people’s minds as a way to store wealth and protect it from governments that are continually debasing the value of paper money.

TGR: You put the dollar second on the pyramid, but said that could change soon. What will be the catalyst for change and what will be the result for investors?

GWeldon: I don’t know what the catalyst for change could potentially be. For me, the dollar stays as No. 2. There’s been an interesting little sequence recently where the dollar has rallied and gold has declined. But gold has not declined to the same degree that the dollar has rallied. Gold is appreciating in a lot of currencies outside of the dollar where it’s actually outperforming dollar-based gold.

Investors have a greater degree of confidence that the Fed will do what it has to do to circumvent a bigger issue. Next to gold, the dollar still is the second place that people feel comfortable.

TGR: Mining equities haven’t been able to keep pace with the price of gold. Do you see that changing?

GWilliams: It continues to surprise me, frankly, that these stocks are on such crazy valuations against the metal. I think once we start to get wider acceptance that inflation is going to be the outcome rather than deflation, people will start to look at these companies in a different way. Mining companies will instantly become some of the most attractive companies in the world.

I think there’s going to be a tremendous wave of consolidation in the mining sector. When it comes is a tough one to call, though. We’re going to see a lot of junior miners get taken out because it’s going to become a battle for ounces in the ground. If you have proven reserves, the majors are going to come looking for you—particularly if you are in a safe political jurisdiction—and they can afford to pay very, very good multiples of where the stocks are trading now.

In the last 10 years, we have seen some tremendous finds. We’ve seen some tremendous small companies that are very, very well run with incredibly experienced geologists. It requires a lot of due diligence to go through the sheer number of gold mining companies and find the very valuable ones, but I think having ounces in the ground and a good, proven management team are the two fundamental criteria that you have to look for in these stocks. Once the consolidation starts to take place and once the scramble for ounces of gold in the ground begins, I think the resulting valuations will be quite spectacular.

TGR: You are both speaking at the Cambridge House California Investment Conference Feb. 11–12. Based on all of these trends that you’ve laid out, how can investors preserve wealth or even profit during volatile times like these?

GWeldon: Investors who are focused on preserving wealth are best served by buying gold on the dip that is currently taking place. The gold price has a chance to reach $1,450/oz—that’s a sizable move downward.

There’s a chance that monetary authorities would take gold coming off that hard as a sign that they need to be more aggressive. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. However, being long gold and silver is clearly the best play in my mind to preserve wealth.

For investors who are looking to appreciate wealth, the commodities markets offer tremendous upcoming opportunities. That is because there is one thing that I can be certain about: Volatility will remain high. We are not going back to a low-volatility environment. It’s treacherous for individual investors trying to do it themselves. We run a long-short commodity program that’s non-leveraged. But there is a lot of talent in the commodities space for individual investors looking to profit from this market environment.

GWilliams: Preserving your wealth is absolutely the right way to look at it at the moment. Trying to make a profit in markets when there is so much uncertainty is a very dangerous thing to do because things change midgame. So I think for the next several years, using gold, silver and the platinum-palladium group metals as a store of wealth fundamentally makes a lot of sense. I suspect you are going to see outsized gains as a byproduct of using that strategy because I think the prices will go materially higher despite low headline inflation numbers. Using gold and precious metals to hedge yourself as a safety trade is the smart thing to do. By doing that, you will not only protect your existing wealth but you can also generate increased wealth through price appreciation in excess of inflation.

TGR: When you say gold and precious metals, how would an individual investor protect wealth using gold? Are you talking about holding the bullion, buying gold exchange-traded funds (ETF) or buying equities?

GWilliams: It depends. I think protecting wealth using highly geared gold mining companies is a dangerous thing to do. Yes, if gold goes crazy, you are going to make some outsize returns, assuming the asset in the ground is good, assuming the management is good and assuming you don’t get any collapsed mines or any other geological anomalies that sometimes are part and parcel of owning gold mining stocks. Holding the bullion itself is absolutely the safest way to do it. You have an asset free and clear with no claims on it. It’s yours. But that’s not necessarily an easy thing to do from a logistical perspective. A lot of people look at the ETFs as a good vehicle, and they are a perfectly good gold proxy. You have a claim on some physical metal there. But for pure safety’s sake, owning the bullion itself or as close to pure bullion as you possibly can is the smartest way to go.

If you’re looking for any kind of leverage or any kind of gearing, then you need to start looking into the mining companies. But outside the major miners, it’s a very dangerous place to be unless you have someone very smart holding your hand, and you need to do an awful lot of work on researching the particular stocks you buy. While the returns can be extremely good, particularly at these low valuations, gold is a very, very tricky thing to dig for and mines are very tricky things to operate and to run. So you have to be aware of that.

Most important, try to steer clear of government bonds. In a world of increasing inflation, and a world where central banks have promised to try and generate MORE inflation, to lend money to irresponsible governments at 0.23% for two years in the case of the U.S is just crazy to me. Over the long term, you are absolutely guaranteed to lose money in real terms by doing that.

TGR: Thank you for your advice.

Greg Weldon started his Wall Street career working in the Comex Gold and Silver Pits after graduating Colgate University. He progressed as an institutional sales broker at Lehman and Prudential before joining Moore Capital as a proprietary trader. At Moore, Weldon honed his systematic trading methodology and risk management discipline before joining Commodity Corporation where he became one of its top risk-adjusted money managers. Today, he publishes Weldon’s Money Monitor, The Metal Monitor and The ETF Playbook in addition to operating his Managed Futures Account Program as a CTA. He has a unique ability to define and forecast the market’s direction through his proprietary dissection of fundamental and technical market data. Weldon Financial is now a highly regarded and profitable publishing company, having garnered some of the world’s most respected fund managers as loyal and daily readers.

Weldon published Gold Trading Boot Camp: How to Master the Basics and Become a Successful Commodities Investor, in late 2006 in which he predicted the current global credit crisis and discussed the impact on golf from intensified central bank debt monetization. You are invited to participate in a “one-time” free trial of Weldon’s research @ www.weldononline.com.

Grant Williams is a portfolio and strategy advisor to Vulpes Investment Management in Singapore—a hedge fund running $200 million of largely partners’ capital across multiple strategies. Williams has 26 years of experience in finance on the Asian, Australian, European and U.S. markets and has held senior positions at several international investment houses. Williams also writes the popular investment letter Things That Make You Go Hmmm….., which is available to subscribers.

Here is the relevant part;

Another area where the transfer of liquidity doesn’t show up as a change in aggregate excess liquidity is when banks offload their wholesale liabilities to other EuroArea banks and refund via the ECB. Here again, if they do it smartly, they can even earn a bit of “quasi carry” in the process, by buying back their debt at well below face value from those who are anxious to exit the periphery, and then refinancing at the ECB without writing down the underlying asset. This could be termed a liability “write down”, and again the procedure earns the bank a nice bit of income which can subsequently be used to help the recapitalisation process.

Take the Portuguese Bank BPI (the country’s fourth largest), which is making public tender offers to buy back its debt. If all concerned tender their bonds to BPI, BPI will pay something short of  €1.5bn cash to investors. Mortgages which were previously sitting in one of their SPVs will return to their balance sheet, and ECB money will now be on the other side financing them allowing significant profits (and capital) to be reported. In this particular tender the smallest discount is 35% and the largest is 65%. Investors may initially balk at the offer, since they will nurse a heavy loss (equal, naturally, to BPI´s profit) but ultimately they will probably be only too happy to be able to walk away from Portugal, and  with some cash in their pocket to boot.

Iberian banks were already aware of  the benefits of this kind of restructuring during the 2009-2010 liquidity wave, and went about quietly repurchasing their bonds (bank capital, securitizations, senior bonds) on a selective and private basis at a discount. Much of their reported profits in those years in fact came from either the ECB carry trade or this kind of  transaction.  So when we read that another Portuguese bank – Banco Espirito Santo – has just had €1 billion of debt guaranteed by the Portuguese state (a sovereign which can’t itself go to the markets) it isn’t hard to imagine that the process going on in the background is something similar to that seen in the BPI case, and that the debt is being guaranteed so it can  go over to the ECB to be posted as collateral.

The National Bank of Greece has been doing something similar. They recently offered to buy back some €1.5 billion in covered bonds and preferred securities,offering 70% of face value for the covered bonds and 45% for the preferred hybrids. As the bank itself says, “The purpose of the offers is to generate core Tier 1 capital for the group and to strengthen the quality of its capital base….The offers would generate a gain for the group.”

And Italian banks would seem to be doing something similar, since they issued around €40 billion in government backed bonds specifically to take to the ECB. The bonds are held by the banks themselves and stay on their books to maturity, their only purpose being to provide collateral for use at the ECB. In fact Italian banks took something like €116 billion from the LTRO, or almost 25% of the total. Perhaps this is why Unicredit CEO Federico Ghizzoni and other European top bankers met ECB officials in Frankfurt back in November, to discuss new rules for collateral.

In Spain securitised mortgages sitting on the balance sheets of the bank-ownedFondos de Titulizacion de Activos could also be recycled in this way (here’s a complete list, although note that these Funds are regulated by Spain’s CNMV and not the Bank of Spain, which is why their presence is relatively unknown and people are able to accurately say that the central bank has been very strict on SIVs, since they weren’t their responsibility).

That something like this may be happening, with the ECB “buying into” public and private  Euro Periphery debt  while investors are discretely getting out is suggested by this report in Bloomberg:

The euro is losing the relationship with riskier assets that underpinned the currency in 2011 as the deepening sovereign debt crisis reduces the creditworthiness of even the biggest economies in the region. The 17-nation currency has fallen 8.7 percent against the dollar since October, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has gained 3.4 percent, and the correlation between the two dropped to 58 percent from a record 91 percent in November, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The euro had moved almost in lockstep with investments linked to growth, including stocks and the Australian dollar, since January 2011.

This decoupling is taking place as European Central Bank President Mario Draghi cuts interest rates and promises banks unlimited cash for three years to rein in soaring borrowing costs for governments… Strategists also anticipate more losses as the US economy improves while the euro zone shrinks, driving international investors away from the region’s assets.

So if the first two objectives were to help the struggling sovereigns, and enable the commercial banks to refinance their debt, then to some extent these objectives have been met. But what about the third objective, moving credit on the periphery to get the real economy moving again? Well, here the ECB’s measures are likely to have far less effect, and indeed what effect they do have may be in some way a mixed blessing, since the banks seem far more worried about demonstrating they have an adequate level of core capital than they are about participating in solutions to real economy problems.

While I would, in general, be hesitant in taking anything from Zero Hedge at full face value I think the following story on Unicredit adds flavor to this by providing further evidence on the points Edward mentions above.

The story is clearly speculative but gets backing from Edward’s accout above. The following seems to be a part of the general process which in itself is, in my view, absolutely mad.

Banks in weak countries have been issuing debt, getting a government guarantee, and then posting them as collateral at the ECB. There are examples of this for Greek banks for sure, but my understanding is it has also been occurring in Portugal and Ireland. It is the only way banks in Greece (and the other countries) can raise money.

The article then goes on to make this more alarming point (but really does not have evidence to back it up) that it appears that about €40 billion of the first LTRO was done by Italian banks (Unicredit?) that issued bonds to themselves and got a government guarantee, and then posted this asset as collateral for liquidity through the LTRO.

So, here is how I understand it.

Unicredit issues a 3m bill and gets a government guarantee so that whoever chooses to buy this bill knows that it will be backed by the sovereign (after all, this is still better than the bank even if the two are joined by the hip). The only problem is that it is being issued to itself with a permanent guarantee from the government.

From an accounting perspective this must be close to illegal in any meaningfully lawful jurisdiction, but I defer to experts here of course. The issue here is not then that the sovereign is guaranteeing a liability of a bank, we have seen this plenty of times and it is indeed the only way that some financials can issue debt, but rather that the bond never gets marketed to third party buyers.

It is absolutely astonishing that this 3m bill is then being posted as collateral at the ECB. But you must understand that it has to be posted as such as far as I can see since you can’t hold your own liabilities.  So, the banks posts a bond issued to itself and posts it at the ECB and get freshly minted fresh euros credited to its bank account at the ECB. After the process, Unicredit still has the bond as a liability but instead of the same bond on the asset side (which is impossible) it has a deposit asset with the ECB.

If this is true, and the ECB is agreeing to this I must admit that it amounts to a serious bout of banking follies in the European banking industry.

The introduction of Maastricht criteria that stipulated fiscal prudence by obliging EU member states to adhere to the level of public debt below 60 percent of the GDP and low fiscal deficit boosted the expectations of stable macroeconomic environment, partly sustained by the European Central Bank which, since its inception in 1999, successfully maintained price stability. Despite an enviable achievement in the stabilization of inflation expectations, the EU Treaty did not stipulate stringent fiscal rules in case of the breach of treaty obligations on behalf of EU member states, neither has European Growth and Stability Pact (EGSP) provided selective mechanisms that would hinge on the EU member state in case Maastricht criteria were not fulfilled. On the other hand, the gradual enlargement of the European union did not finalize in the economic union characterized by the realization of four basic freedoms.

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

John Mauldin: Instead of doing an annual forecast, I’m going to look out about five years, which may be five times more foolish. What I want to do rather than try and figure out where the stock market is going to be at the end of 2012 or what gold is going to do, is look at the choices we have around the world.

In most cases, political events don’t change the economic world all that much. It’ll probably annoy partisans on both sides, but if Clinton had lost to George Bush senior the first time, we would have still had a bull market. We were already in recovery. Yes, we would have had different Supreme Court Justices, but that’s not the economic world. We were set on a path. If Gore had beaten Bush 2, economically I don’t think much would have changed. We still would have had the end of a bull market and a recession in 2001. We would have had a housing bubble. Greenspan would have probably been reappointed either way. We would have had a credit crisis because we were in the process of building up debt that started in the ’50s. Europe was building its debt up. Japan was building its debt up. That is the reality.

Now the private sector is deleveraging, but sovereign debt is in a bubble. The air is coming out. My view is that the wheels are going to fall off Europe this year. I have been researching the Mayan codes and I have determined that the ancient Mayans were not astrologers; they were economists. They weren’t predicting the end of the world; they were simply predicting the end of Europe. That is a humorous way of saying this is the year Europe is going to have to make some very difficult choices. Greece gets to choose what kind of depression it wants, hard and fast or slow and long. It can’t avoid depression completely. It has borrowed too much money. The government is too big. It has come to the end of the ability to raise money at low rates. Italy and Spain are well on that path along with the rest of Europe. So, they have to make a decision, a political decision that is going to have major economic consequences.

Does Europe want to be a political union that looks more like the United States, where the individual entities have to run balanced budgets and can’t print their own money and have some kind of fiscal controls or they go back to a two-tiered Europe with multiple currencies. One way or another, this is the year that Europe is running out of road to kick the can.

Fortunately, in the U.S. we are not there yet. We have some room to make a decision. That decision is going to be made in 2012 because by 2013 we are going to have to decide how we deal with the deficits and debt. After 2014, the bond markets will start to raise rates. Total U.S. debt is continuing to grow because governments are growing debt faster than private citizens are decreasing debt. The bond markets are starting to rebel long before you would think they would for a country that’s the world reserve currency. The key is whether debt is excessive relative to income. If you can make your debt service, people will still lend you money. When they don’t think you can, they will stop. That’s when you have a crisis. It’s a debt super cycle. And, when you reach the end, you have to deal with the debt. You can pay it down. You can default on it. You can print the money, extend it out with lower rates or financial repression, which are all other ways to look at default. But, nonetheless, that debt is there.

The problem we are facing in the U.S. is that gross domestic product (GDP) is consumption plus investment plus government spending plus net exports. If we decrease government spending over time, we decrease GDP. That’s the problem that Greece is going through right now. It has to decrease government spending by 4.5%, thus shrinking the economy. But it can’t increase government spending without increasing debt or taking taxes away, which decreases consumption. Nothing the government does will make things better. The U.S. is on the same path. We can become Greece by continuing to borrow or be proactive and say we are going to get our deficits under control over a period of five or six years. The economy is still going to be slower than we would like and unemployment higher than we would like. That’s just the rules. We’re at the end game. We are at the end of the debt super cycle and that’s what happens.

Printing money doesn’t increase the GDP in actual real terms, but it makes everyone holding gold happy because the value of natural resources goes up. That is why I buy gold every month. I take those coins, I put them in a vault and I hope I never need them. I quite frankly hope gold goes back to $300/ounce (oz) because that means the economy is in wonderful shape. I’m actually afraid that gold is going to go up in value, which means we are not getting our act together.

That leads to questions about fault. Did the banks do things they shouldn’t have? Yes. Were they the cause of it? No. Was Greenspan the cause of the bubble? No. He was part of the cause. I mean, we did a lot of things as a country that weren’t good choices. Should we have allowed our banks to go to 30 and 40 to 1 leverage? No. Should we have repealed Glass-Steagall? No. The problem is that real median household income hasn’t moved for 15 years because real private GDP hasn’t changed. The only thing that has grown is government spending.

John Derrick: In 2011, the European financial crisis moved from the periphery to the core. Central bank policies were big drivers of the decline. The European Central Bank and China raised rates early in the year and again in July as fears of a China slowdown grew. That early tightening to fend off inflation had a big impact on the course of events throughout the year. The other big events were the U.S. credit downgrade in August and currency intervention, particularly in the Japanese yen.

Frank Holmes: There is a huge amount of borrowing around the world in Japanese yen because it is so inexpensive. That includes investing in commodities, resources and emerging markets. And, every time we see this huge signal move by the yen, you get this rippling effect that takes about six weeks to resolve itself with commodities being sold down. Therefore, a lot of fund managers borrowing in Japanese yen are long energy stocks, resource stocks and emerging markets, which leads to a lot of selling.

JD: The second half of last year was very volatile, but the market ended essentially flat. In fact, much of the volatility was concentrated in the last month, which made for a very difficult psychological environment, as the market has been somewhat schizophrenic with weekly rallies and selloffs.

Spikes in the yen caused market selloffs. This hit commodities especially hard. So the secret for 2012 is to use the volatility. Buy on the volatility spikes. Unfortunately, what most people do is just the opposite. Another thing to look for in 2012 is a positive fourth year of the presidential election cycle as the government tries to implement policies that will get them reelected.

Brian Hicks: There has been a lot of concern about money supply growth in the emerging markets, particularly in China, which reduced bank reserve requirements last year. A reacceleration of global money supply can be particularly constructive for commodities going forward as there has been a high correlation between money supply growth and commodities.

If you were to take all the global money and back that by gold, the price of gold could go to $10,000/oz. If you just use half of the global money supply, gold would trade at about $5,000/oz, up from approximately $1,600/oz right now. The more U.S. dollars in circulation, the higher the price of gold. This has been the main factor increasing the price of gold since 1998 and will continue to be the case in the years to come. Gold has a lot of running room to go.

Another driver for the price of gold has been federal deficits. Government spending is way above revenues. We hit a point in 2000 where spending as a percentage of GDP greatly exceeded taxes as a percentage of GDP. This could be a point of no return and could potentially drive the price of gold even higher. There has been a large bifurcation between the price of gold and gold equities, particularly in the last couple of years as risk aversion has prompted many investors to buy the bullion as opposed to gold equities. This is creating opportunity. We feel like there’s going to be a catch up in gold equities, many of which are trading at very low multiples to cash flows and earnings. Stocks such as Newmont Mining Corp. (NEM:NYSE) look like value stocks now paying high dividend yields and trading at sub 10-times price to earnings ratios. This could really present an attractive opportunity in 2012.

JD: Just a comment on all the takeovers. We were seeing 6% premiums on takeovers in ‘06. Now we are talking 60+ premiums. That’s another reflection of how undervalued the stocks are relative to commodities.

BH: That’s a great point. We have seen tremendous value creation based on mergers and acquisitions.

Shifting gears a little bit, crude oil and refined product inventories ended the year at the lowest level on record (about 685 million barrels). That’s 6% below the prior year. It’s particularly interesting when you consider some of the geopolitical factors that have arisen with Iran talking about blocking off the Strait of Hormuz. This is a primary factor behind oil price supports despite the tenuous economic environment. Many investors don’t realize that Russia is very important for non-OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) supply, a key factor in containing oil price spikes. Russia is increasing production while other non-OPEC production in Mexico or in the North Sea have been declining significantly, which has helped to bolster OPEC’s market share. It has also limited the ability of oil markets to increase production out of the Middle East due to the inability to invest in those troubled areas. In fact, Russian production has been quite steady since 2006, increasing anywhere from 100 to 400,000 barrels per day (bpd), mid-single digit growth. But, forecasters predict in 2012 we will see flat production growth, which is troubling given the fact that we continue to see demand increase in other areas of the world, mainly out of China. This will be a driving factor going forward for crude oil prices.

Evan Smith: Oil supply threats include geopolitical problems at a time when oil supply and spare capacity at OPEC is rather low—a little over 2 million bpd. Nearly 40% of global supply is under autocratic rule. Iran has threatened to disrupt the supply of crude oil and products through the Strait of Hormuz where about a third of global oil supply passes. So, any disruption, even temporarily, would cause a severe spike in oil prices. We think oil prices could support $100/barrel. One of the things we like in 2012 is higher exposure to master limited partnerships partly because of their steady cash flows. They are becoming a growth business now. The capital expenditures here in the United States have grown from $3.5 billion (B) in 2005 to nearly $16B this year. This is partly because of the growth in many of the shale plays, which require increased infrastructure. We think this is an excellent investment opportunity. We also see a big opportunity for the global oil services. We can see that capital expenditures have been rising. We expect them to rise from about $500B to nearly $.5 trillion this year, an increase of 15%. So, we see tremendous opportunity for some of the oil services contractors and equipment providers. Another key driver is the impressive amount of money that has been invested in North America. Just over the last three years nearly $129B in mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures has occurred. Global companies are coming to North America to invest in these shale plays because the economics are so attractive due to improved technology. They want to learn that technology and take it home. So, we think there is continued opportunity for investors in the resource play here in North America.

Shifting gears, one of the base metals we will target is copper. It is our favorite base metal. The demand side is holding up relatively well compared to some of the other base metals. Even in China, which is the largest market for copper growth, the build out of the grid is really a key driver. That is holding up quite well. On the other side of the supply/demand equation, supply has been a problem. Through most of the boom in copper prices, mine output has lagged forecasts. Causes included weather, labor strikes and just poor grade. The bottom line is that supply has not kept up with demand. We have not solved that problem so we think 2012 should be a relatively good year for copper prices.

Another theme we like is the agricultural space. Global population continues to grow. The emerging middle class continues to consume more grains, principally through the production of more meat as people consume more protein in their diets. There has been a huge surge in the need for the production of grains, yet no more land is being created. One of the key ways we’re seeing increased yields out of croplands is through higher applications of fertilizers. That has created a fairly tight situation for potash, specifically. But, other fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphate are also benefiting from this trend.

FH: I would just add that the world’s population has doubled from the ’70s when we had rising commodities. There’s a very different factor and China and India have a global footprint that they didn’t have.

Xian Liang: China remains the biggest driver of world demand for energy due to a rising middle class, but it is in a very early stage when it comes to discretionary spending. Take for example passenger cars. Despite a tremendous growth in auto consumption in the last decade, only 18% of Chinese households own a car. Car ownership in China is just one-tenth of U.S. levels or the same level it was in the U.S. in 1914. Air travel remains at the U.S. equivalent of the 1950s. This illustrates a great growth potential going forward. Urbanization is one of the most significant trends driving consumption. In 2011, the number of urban residents in China exceeded rural residents for the first time in Chinese history. But, China won’t stop at this 50% urbanization rate if the historical trajectory of its richer neighbor, South Korea, is any guide. We could have another 30% of growth by the year 2013. South Korea outgrew its urbanization rates in a 40-year time span. And, if China continues to urbanize, there will be about 200 million new urban households in China, which creates enormous demand for consumer staples, durable goods and housing.

China’s government policies signal the trend will continue. China raised reserve requirement ratios 12 times since January 2010. We view that as an early signal for the next easing cycle. The last time China eased reserve ratios in October 2008, that triggered a big market rally in Chinese stocks. This should bode well for stocks. We don’t think the Chinese auto boom is over. Actually, in the last couple of days, officials in China hinted that new measures may be introduced to support auto and home appliance sales.

Outside of China, we see government policies remaining very positive in southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia and Thailand. The money supply in the past two years has not deteriorated in these two countries, in fact, it is growing at a healthy 16% year over year. This is part of the reason why we remain positive on southeast Asia. Indonesia is rich in natural resources, but it doesn’t depend as much on exports. In fact two-thirds of its GDP is driven by domestic consumption, which is how it managed to escape a recession in 2008 and 2009. Favorable demographics is a factor. It is a very young country. More than 45% of the population is under 24 years old and 2 million people a year are joining the work force. Second, urbanization is creating new consumer demand. Just like China, Indonesia’s household debt is low. Total mortgage loans outstanding account for only 3% of GDP. Consumer credit is still at a very early state. I see tremendous growth potential going forward.

FH: The money supply is growing very rapidly in the entire region. I think it’s not just a China story. It’s a whole emerging market. And, I like to characterize it as the American dream trade as all these countries want the American dream. They all want a house. They want a car. They want all the lifestyle that we have.

John Derrick joined U.S. Global Investors Inc. in January 1999 as an investment analyst for the U.S. Global Investors money market and tax free funds. In March 2004, he was promoted from portfolio manager to director of research and now manages the day-to-day operations of the investment team. Prior to joining U.S. Global Investors, Derrick worked at Fidelity Investments. He has appeared on CNBC and Bloomberg TV and has also been a guest on Marketwatch Radio and NPR. Derrick has been featured in stories for BusinessWeek, The New York Times, the Associated Press and USA Today. A graduate of The University of Texas at Arlington, Derrick earned a Bachelor of Arts in finance. He sits on the board of directors for the CFA Society of San Antonio.

Frank Holmes is CEO and chief investment officer at U.S. Global Investors Inc., which manages a diversified family of mutual funds and hedge funds specializing in natural resources, emerging markets and infrastructure. In 2006 Mining Journal, a leading publication for the global resources industry, chose him as mining fund manager of the year. Holmes coauthored The Goldwatcher: Demystifying Gold Investing (2008). A regular contributor to investor-education websites and speaker at investment conferences, he writes articles for investment-focused publications and appears on television as a business commentator.

John Mauldin is the author of New York Times Best Sellers list four times. They include Bull’s Eye Investing: Targeting Real Returns in a Smoke and Mirrors Market, Just One Thing: Twelve of the World’s Best Investors Reveal the One Strategy You Can’t Overlook and Endgame: The End of the Debt Supercycle and How it Changes Everything. He also edits the free weekly e-letter Outside the Box. Mauldin also offers The Mauldin Circle, a free service that connects accredited investors to an exclusive network of money managers and alternative investment opportunities. He is a frequent contributor to publications including The Financial Times and The Daily Reckoning, as well as a regular guest on CNBC, Yahoo Tech Ticker and Bloomberg TV. Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. He is also a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, a FINRA-registered broker-dealer.

Evan Smith joined U.S. Global Investors Inc. in 2004 as co-portfolio manager of the Global Resources Fund (PSPFX). Previously, he was a trader with Koch Capital Markets in Houston where he executed quantitative long-short equities strategies. He was also an equities research analyst with Sanders Morris Harris in Houston where he followed energy companies in the oil and gas, coal mining and pipeline sectors. In addition, he was with the Valuation Services Group of Arthur Andersen LLP. Smith holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas in Austin.

The main thing is to realise that this is an unprecedented global monetary experiment.

My message to investors in 2012 would then be not to underestimate this inflation bias by part of global central banks. Inflating your way out of too much debt won’t work in the long run without considerable defaults and/or economic stress (hyper inflation). Events since 2008 are ample evidence of this, but the simultaneous inclination to create inflation and debase your currency (to generate more inflation and exports) by all major central banks will continue to exert a profound effect on asset prices and the global economy.

In so far as goes the idea that an investors’ interest in asset prices is conditioned on return and volatility we can say that central bank policy will affect both. Financial assets will certainly benefit from excess liquidity, but the unravelling of too much debt through inevitable defaults and the central bank policies themselves will generate volatility. Whether the combination of such volatility and return means that you should stay out of the market entirely is a question for the individual investor. I believe that

From a macroeconomic point of view, the downbeat assessment remains however that it is difficult if not impossible to paint a picture of where sufficient growth is going to come from and on the investment side of things, the higher level of volatility will tend to shake the foundation of investors even if money is to be made for short periods of time.

Most attention has been centered on the ECB, whether the 3y LTRO represent QE and whether the continuing rejection to buy government bonds outright means that the ECB is a laggard among global central banks (see this excellent report by Hinde Capital for additional analysis relative to the points below).

750 Billion USD,  and counting …

Europe remains the center of the global debt crisis, a role the continent has now decisively taken over from the US which stood at the forefront in the initial phases of the crisis in 2008. Apart from the almost endless summits and meetings among government officials the significant measures continue to be the ones coming from the ECB.

In my view, the European interbank market is virtually dead and dusted, and the ECB and the Fed are now effectively the only thing between Europe’s banks and large scale failures. Since early September 750 billion USD worth of liquidity has been provided to the European banking system of which 100 billion sits on the Fed balance sheet through USD swap lines.

Who will bet against the final 3y LTRO auction to take this beyond one trillion USD?

Spanish and Italian curves are now nicely steep again after a brush with inversion which obviously was one of the main objectives even if it was always debatable whether banks would buy government bonds with the liquidity taken up at the ECB.

The question is; how do you unwind all this? 750 billion USD to roll short term liabilities with the ECB and the Fed seems to me to be one of the biggest gamble in monetary history.

While the BOE and the Fed have been transparent in their QE efforts and the BOJ never really having left the zero bound the ECB has been more covert. However, it is my contention that with the expansion of the securities market programme (SMP) in 2011 to buy considerable amounts of government bonds (1) as well as the 3y LTRO the ECB is now fully engaged in quantitative easing.

I base this on two points.

• The ECB has acted as a sovereign debt buyer of last resort in times of crisis. It is common knowledge in the market that the ECB has been Italian and Spanish bonds in times of particular stress on the notion that these two economies in particular could not be allowed to fatally succumb to the debt snowball dynamics.

• ECB support for the banking system in the form of collateralised liquidity and wholesale funding is not temporary but structural and permanent in nature. The interbank market in Europe is not working and has not been working since the crisis started in 2008.

The ECB will of course vehemently deny this but investors should understand that such denial is mainly out of political reasons.  When Draghi unveiled the ECB’s attempt to backstop the crisis in Europe by offering full allotment liquidity on a 3y basis, the market was disappointed because the central bank president also reiterated that the ECB would not step up its purchases of government bonds.

I think that the ECB will be forced into a much more direct and active role where unsterilized purchases in the primary market (monetisation) will be needed, but I fully appreciate the political issues. We are currently in a delicate situation where new governments in most of the involved countries are saddled with forced mandates to impose austerity. It is very difficult for all parties involved to push this agenda if the ECB had stepped up a full backstop. Moral hazard risks are consequently paramount here.

As such, investors must content with the ECB’s attempt to shore up the European banking system which is no little feat given the bank rollover schedule in 2012  as well as new Basel II regulation which will further impair already shaken balance sheets. The ECB’s initiatives then follows the steady deterioration of conditions in the European (indeed global) banking system which initially culminated in the coordinated action by global central banks to supply dollars through Fed swap lines and which found its European answer in the ECB’s decision to provide unlimited liquidity yet again.

The problems look ominous for European banks and the global financial system in general. No matter what, European financial institutions will have to delever significantly which will spread its tentacles wide and far due to the high penetration by European banks in emerging markets (Eastern Europe in particular).

Behind the scenes however, significant ink has been spilled to debate and speculate on to the exact significance of the ECB’s liquidity operations.

John Hempton for example suggests that the ECB’s policy move is an open invitation to play the carry trade game using almost free liquidity to buy higher yielding government bonds.

Well the Euro fix is in. Whether it works – that is another question. But the fix is this: European banks can borrow unlimited amounts for three years to buy Euro government debt. The debt often yields 5 percent. The money costs 1 percent.

I agree that the incentives are certainly there for the banks to play this game especially in the context of government bonds as zero risk weighted assets. The problem is that many European banks have spent more than a year and two stress tests to get rid of substantial amount of peripheral government debt (which do not count as zero risk weighted assets according to Basel III) and as such weak governments are unlikely to benefit from this.

The flip side of this is that most of the liquidity taken up by banks go straight back to the ECB at the deposit facility which is now standing higher than at any time between 2008 and 2010.

Quote Reuters

The euro zone banking system starts the new year awash with record levels of liquidity but few signs that institutions are prepared to lend to each other, leaving money markets frozen.Most of the near half trillion euros of three-year funds borrowed from the European Central Bank in the last week of 2011 have made their way back to the ECB’s overnight deposit account.

The Reuters piece goes on to argue that most of the liquidity will probably go to aid the large refinancing need banks face in 2012 and thus effectively as a replacement for a non-functioning interbank market that would normally be able to roll this financing. If this does nothing to solve the problem of sovereign insolvency and illiquidity it will work wonders through the fact that banks won’t act as a drag on their respective sovereign’s balance sheet as long as the ECB is involved.

I would note though that even though the liquidity is mainly reflected in reserves held at the ECB, it still represents excess liquidity as noted by Danske Bank.

Some market commentators have argued that the first 36 months long-term refinancing operation (LTRO), in which banks took EUR490bn in total, has so far not worked as planned because the extra liquidity has simply been placed on the deposit facility at the ECB. However, this argument is false.The sharp increase in outstanding open market operations (MRO+LTRO) increases excess liquidity (defined as open market operations plus recourse to the marginal lending facility minus autonomous liquidity factors minus reserve requirements) and this excess liquidity shows up as deposits at the ECB in just the same way as it did in 2008-10.

However, nothing is easy and despite the fact that collateral can be posted for liquidity the sovereign is still on the hook as my friend Edward Hugh points out.

Banks are being encouraged to keep rolling over what are basically NPLs by financing them at 1% at the ECB (foreclosing on them in Spain and keeping the property on the books may cost something like 8% in comparison). But the ECB isn’t assuming the risk here, the national sovereign implicitly is, and is getting in deeper by the day.

This is certainly true by the letter of the law but one has to wonder whether the ECB will ever get paid back here. I mean 3 years is an awful lot of time. The ECB can roll these loans as long as need be (it has already effectively been rolling bank funding since 2008) while maintaining the figue leaf that it is not funding sovereigns. This may be true, but it is effectively funding the sovereign’s banks and postponing the day of reckoning which is bank failures or nationalisation or both.

If the ECB is then forced take a hit on the collateral or the loans themselves, it will need to create the money to pay for these loans by printing euros. This sounds as a plan to me except that it does not solve the funding risks of governments which may or may not be able to ask their banks for help. The likely answer is that they won’t be unless the ECB and EU decide to wield the ultimate weapon of financial oppression which would be to penalise reserves over a given level with negative interest rates at the same time as banks would be forced, through regulation, to hold government bonds.

But Edward makes another interesting point;

Looking at the Greek PSI, what they would try and do (if all this gets that far, I mean if the Euro holds together long enough in this Byzantine world) ) is load up the private sector share of the haircut, and keep the ECB as untouchable official sector. At the limit they can use ELA to keep the banks afloat while the sovereign restructures and then recapitalises.

(…)

Why would any ex Eurozone third party want to be counterparty to anything which might end up being subordinated to ECB exposure later on down the line. The more I think about it the more it seems to me that the 3 yr LTROs might end up choking the European banking system to death.

It is difficult to disagree on the gist of this point, namely that the ECB is digging itself a very big hole. If banks can exchange under water assets at the ECB for a deposit asset at the ECB (albeit with a negative carry) the ECB is running the risk that it becomes the sole counterparty of bad assets in the euro zone in which case seniority will mean very little.

The Greek situation is a good example. Private creditors face an almost certain 100% wipeout exactly because they represent such a small tranche of the total stock of debt. In such a situation the asymmetric relationship between subordinate and senior debt holders mean that the latter essentially become equity holders. But once subordinate creditors are wiped out the turn comes to the senior debt tranches and the further the ECB goes along the road of providing full allotment liquidity the higher will be its implicit direct claim on assets of all sorts of qualities.

In conclusion, it is my view that the ECB is now the only thing between the economy and widespread bank failures, but I also concur that the consequence of this is a permanent outsourcing of the interbank market in Europe to the ECB’s balance sheet and, quite possibly, Fed’s USD swap lines.

–

(1) – Even if such purchases have been fully sterilised.

Let’s recap:  we all declared victory just a few months ago it seemed.  We ’solved this for the city’ was one quote.


So last week we learn that the city pension funding is down to 54%,  Note that is 54% with the notional asset of pledged future parking revenues that is still hard to define and as council is learning even harder yet to extract from the Pittsburgh Parking Authority.  Let’s just agree that it is not cash on hand in any form, nor fungible in any extant market.  I still want to know what the real cash horizon is for the pension fund.  You think others would care as well.


What really ups my distemper over the whole notional asset is how if confused the public.  Maybe the asset makes sense, maybe it doesn’t.  But read the news coverage and tell me if you walk away with any appreciation for how much in $$ is really there to pay pension bills? No real appreciation that a large part (soon to be the majority) of all pension assets are no more than a promise from the city to itself to pay money in the future to the pension account.  It is a promise that I am pretty sure existed long before last December mind you.


So it is conincidence that Governning had a column last week on the public pension problems everywhere to a degree. Will pension plans run out of money? It talks of the “risk of depletion” for pension funds.  “depletion” isn’t quite a euphemism, but sure sounds a lot tamer than the what it would mean if it were to come true.


So what does it all mean here?   Here is what we know as to the state of the city’s collective pension fund. Forgive me for any errors in the decimal points, the city does not mail me the detailed pension accounting.

The Gold Report: Since the last time we chatted in July, Bob, a lot has happened. Congress raised the debt ceiling, as you predicted.

Bob Moriarty: Right.

TGR:Then the Super Committee failed to produce an agreement so we can look forward to the automatic debt reduction of $2.2 trillion.

BM: The Super Committee was totally illegal and unconstitutional in the first place and it was totally ineffective. They couldn’t reduce spending by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year period. Give me a break.

TGR: Okay. Moving on. . .Unemployment remains at about 9%.

BM: You say 9%? I don’t think so. How about 23%?

TGR: The list goes on. Occupy Wall Street protests have sprouted up all over the country. And of course, Newt Gingrich is the leading Republican candidate.

BM: That anyone could even consider Newt Gingrich for anything above the role of dog catcher is pretty terrifying.

TGR: There’s more. We’ve seen riots in Europe, with the epicenter in Greece. We’ve got a weak German bond market.

BM: Weak? It was a total failure; 39% coverage is a disaster. Germany is the bedrock of the EU, and if they can get bids for only 39% of bonds it’s over—over—for the EU.

TGR: The Italian bonds coming up should test that theory.

BM: Italian bonds are paying 8% or something like that. It can’t do it. The Greek two-year bond is paying 160%. The one-year bond is paying 270%. Greece has defaulted. Italy, Spain and France are going to default. It will be a series of cascading bank defaults. Dexia Bank failed a month ago. The banking system is under water. I’ve been saying that for years. It’s true.

TGR: So looking at this whole developing picture, from the crisis in Europe to the U.S. debt debacle, from stubborn unemployment, protests and riots to the upcoming presidential election—what do you make of all of this?

BM: The piece I wrote in early October captured it. I said things were about to get “fugly” and it’s time to head for the bunker.

TGR: In your Nov. 11 article, you stated specifically that you’d climb out on a limb and suggest that 2012 will go down in history as the year of bank failures. How do you see that scenario playing out?

BM: Okay. Here’s what’s important to understand and very few people understand this. If you start off with $1 million and loan it from one institution to another to another to another, you may have a net of $1 million. But if somebody defaults and that $1 million asset disappears, you get cascading defaults of every institution that had that $1 million asset. It’s really simple. The Greek default—and Greece has defaulted even though they won’t admit it—will cause a default in Spain and Italy, and that’s going to cause a default in France and that’s going to cause a default in the U.S.

TGR: And what happens when they default?

BM: The banks close. What can we do? We have more debt in the world than assets, so we have to write off the bad debt. Unfortunately, no government in the world is talking about that. The only people talking about it are Gerald Celente, Kyle Bass and me.

TGR: But bank foreclosure is more than writing off bad debt. That creates catastrophic. . .

BM: It’s a good thing if a business fails, because that means somebody who is efficient comes along and picks up the slack. We do not need to reward failure in the banking system. We need to reward success.

TGR: Could the banking system write off a portion of the debt?

BM: Nah, they are under water now. It’s a zombie banking system and has been since about the middle of September 2008. Just a while ago, at the end of November, the Federal Reserve disclosed $13 billion in profits to the banks from the trillions in loans they made back in 2008 that they’ve been lying about ever since. They were bailing out Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland and lots of other banks that had nothing to do with the United States.

TGR: Is there a banking system that will survive these cascading defaults?

BM: The question should be: “Can you have a banking system that is sound and secure?” And the answer is yes. The Canadian banks are in a lot better shape than the U.S. banks. A sound, secure bank cannot have those zombie assets, such as the mortgages that we know people are not paying off. Half the mortgages in the United States are under water, with 25% in default. Those mortgages must be written off.

TGR: Couldn’t a component of the banking system—some of the regional banks in the U.S., particularly those that have written off some of those mortgages and are really more about loaning to local businesses and local communities—survive a banking system failure?

BM: The banking system in the United States is a network of giants and the regional banks really don’t exist anymore. I don’t have specific numbers but I think the big five banks probably represent 90% of the banking system. That leaves no fallback, really.

TGR: When the U.S. banks close, you’re in the Cayman, but what happens to the rest of us?

BM: Since Bretton Woods in 1944, governments have been spending money they don’t have and it’s time to pay the piper. A lot of people’s “assets”—Social Security, pensions, Medicare, Medicaid—will evaporate. They’ll disappear. We need to go back to a real world economy where people produce things of value. We need reasonable taxes. And we need a reasonably sized government that doesn’t spend beyond its means. This is true of individuals as well as governments.

TGR: How do people waiting in line for pensions, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. . .

BM: That money has to come from somewhere. Anything the government gives one group has to be taken from another group. The net is it costs you money to have the government provide healthcare, Medicare, Social Security. We would be far better off if the government didn’t provide these things. We didn’t have Social Security 100 years ago and people were fine. When I started working 40 years ago, people still had pensions from their employers. By and large they don’t have much of that anymore.

TGR: Unless they’re government employees.

BM: Yeah. Then you are going to get paid twice what the private sector is getting paid.

TGR: Your November article also said what you have been suggesting for months that cash is the best investment people can hold. In fact, you concluded with these words: “It’s time to stay in cash and head for the bunker.” As you mentioned before, “times are about to get fugly.”

BM: Right.

TGR: Do you include cash equivalents such as gold or precious metals under that “cash” umbrella?

BM: No, I mean cash. The best investment to be in for the last six months was cash, U.S. dollar cash. Even Gerald Celente had a six-figure account with MF Global and the money simply evaporated. Without cash, people who go to bed wealthy will wake up poor.

TGR: All the goldbugs say that will happen if you keep your money in fiat currencies too.

BM: That’s not necessarily true. At times, investing in fiat currencies is a good deal. If you were investing in U.S. dollars in March 2008, you would have been better off that fall than you would with any other single investment. Gold went from about $1,200/ounce (oz) to $700/oz, while silver went from $21/oz to $9/oz. The stock market crashed. The gold juniors crashed. Sometimes being in cash, U.S. dollars, is a good investment. It’s been a particularly good investment for the last three or four months.

TGR: Because your analogy goes back to 2008, when we had a severe crash, is it fair to extrapolate that you’re predicting another severe crash?

BM: We are going through a crash right now.

TGR: If that’s the case, why should anyone be in equities?

BM: You can’t ever invest 100% in anything. No one can guarantee the future. All you can do is hope you get it right 55% of the time. Cash, U.S. dollar cash, has been a good investment since this past April, and it’s still a good investment. Europe is about to blow up and the dollar is a safe haven. There is a lot of deleveraging going on. And, as in 2008, the U.S. dollar is a good place to be. And cash is better than having the money in T-bonds, with a negative interest rate.

TGR: You are expecting the banking system to collapse, and banks typically hold cash. What value is the cash if the banks fold?

BM: You can buy things with it.

TGR: So you’re saying people should physically hold their cash in their homes?

BM: I do. I have some money in the banks to pay bills, but mentally I have written off every cent in the bank. I accept the fact that I will go down to the bank one day and the ATM won’t work anymore and the bank will be closed. You can have cash sitting in the bank, too, but at the same time you have to understand the great danger with the banks. While I wouldn’t sit on a half million dollars in cash at home, if I had it in a bank I would be prepared. I think everybody should keep three to six months in liquid assets, and that certainly would involve cash and gold and silver. Cash and gold and silver will be very valuable when the banking system collapses.

TGR: If the banking system collapses, how long will it be before new banks emerge to take over the fundamental role of banking?

BM: It’s not “if” the banking system collapses; “when” would be more accurate. You simply cannot justify the banking system today. The sooner we get to whatever comes next, the better off we’ll be. My opinion is that all fiat currencies will crash, and when they do, we’ll go back to a gold standard.

TGR: How quickly can we develop a gold standard from the annihilated banking system?

BM: It depends on how big the riots are. Governments never act. They only react. If we have riots in every major city in the United States and hundreds or thousands of people a day are being killed, the government may actually take some action that would make sense. That would be to say, “We have a financial system that doesn’t work. We need to go to a financial system that does work.” Gold and silver work and they have worked for 5,000 years.

TGR: Do you see a situation where the government would start a national bank?

BM: God, I hope not. That would be adding fuel to the fire. I think that “unlimited stupidity” and “government” belong in the same sentence. But if the government started a national bank, that wouldn’t be unlimited stupidity―that would be infinite stupidity.

TGR: Earlier you made a point about having to be right only 55% of the time to move forward with a balanced portfolio. Let’s assume that an investor has some hard assets now, in safe havens, with some at home. At that point, does this investor turn to the market?

BM: Yes. I just bought 100,000 shares of a company that did a financing at $0.80 in April. It now has $0.46 per share in cash and its stock is selling at $0.23. If I can buy cash at $0.50 on the dollar, I’ll do it.

TGR: So you are looking for opportunities with a company’s value below its cash balance.

BM: Any time you can buy at a discount, that’s a good deal. If you can buy a dollar for $0.50, the upside is $0.50. We see this happening every 10 or 15 years. In the summer of 2001, a number of stocks that were selling for less than the cash they had on hand doubled or tripled or quadrupled when the market turned around. In September and October of 2008, something like 200 companies were selling for less than their cash on hand. A Russian silver company was selling for $0.20 on the dollar. You simply cannot get a more favorable environment than buying cash at a discount. Any time you have that opportunity, you should throw money at it.

TGR: So, what companies are you finding that have cash at a discount?

BM: People are going to have to look for them themselves. All the figures are available to everybody. I use Stockhouse and StockWatch and look at the ratios.

TGR: We’re hearing that capital is so hard to come by, yet we found at the San Francisco Hard Assets Investment Conference at the end of last month quite a number who were getting capital.

BM: Those deals had actually been set up for months. The last few weeks the financings literally just stopped. Everybody is in a total panic now. I watched stocks drop 25% and I have to tell you, it was pretty scary even though I was one of the guys forecasting it. When a company loses 25% of its value in a week and there is nothing wrong with the company, it’s scary. A lot of times I see things happening that scare me and I don’t want them to happen. I talk about them because I have an obligation to talk about them.

TGR: Could you talk about the kinds of companies that are actually building their value?

BM: In August 2008 the Philadelphia Gold and Silver Index, which is a measure of pure psychology, went to the lowest level it had ever been in history. Stocks were cheaper in August, September and October 2008 relative to gold than they had ever been. But gold was $700/oz. Silver was $9/oz. And they got clobbered. So it’s natural that big gold and silver shares got clobbered too.

Now, we have $1,700/oz gold and $32/oz silver, and stocks are cheaper today than in 2008. That is totally irrational. Those kinds of circumstances do not continue for very long. In 2008 platinum came down to the same price as gold. Platinum is $210/oz cheaper than gold today and that has never before occurred in my lifetime. I don’t think it’s occurred in history. That’s an example of something that would be a very good opportunity.

TGR: So if the juniors are on sale, are the majors also on sale?

BM: Yes.

TGR: How should investors begin looking at the whole plethora of mining companies to decide which ones really create the value?

BM: My priority would be junior production stories. You’ve got Timmins Gold Corp. (TMM:TSX.V; TMM:NYSE.A), Fortuna Silver Mines Inc. (FSM:NYSE; FVI:TSX; FVI:BLV), Endeavour Silver Corp. (EDR:TSX; EXK:NYSE; EJD:Fkft), First Majestic Silver Corp. (FR:TSX; AG:NYSE; FMV:Fkft; FRMSF:OTCQX), Great Panther Silver Ltd. (GPR:TSX; GPL:NYSE.A) and Rio Alto Mining Ltd. (RIO:TSX.V; RIO:BVL; RIOAF:OTCQX). There are dozens, dozens of good production stories. Nobody quite knows where the price of gold and silver will go, but anybody in production now is literally minting money. You would have to be profitable. You couldn’t possibly not be profitable.

TGR: You wrote about Meadow Bay Gold Corp. (MAY:TSX.V; MAYGF:OTCQX) back in October. Is that still an interesting story to you?

BM: It’s a really funny story. It totally screwed up its drill program. It was drilling for an epithermal vein system and hit a porphyry system. The significance of that is that porphyries are really big, so instead of having potentially 1–2 million ounces (Moz), literally overnight it went to having 3–4 Moz potential.

When I made that same comment about screwing up the drill program with Meadow Bay’s chief geologist, he laughed, because if you’re going to screw up by finding a much bigger deposit than you thought you had, that’s a really good deal.

TGR: You’d called it a no-lose drill program. Did you know it was going to come out the way it did?

BM: It had announced one hole—a porphyry hole. As soon as I knew it was porphyry I understood the future was bright indeed. That’s a really good company and it is doing a really good job.

TGR: Do you have a preference toward production of gold versus silver?

BM: Silver has attracted a lot of attention with people who simply don’t know what they are writing about. And they attract all the nutcases. You can make a lot more money shorting silver than you can going long silver because people get totally irrational. There is no shortage of silver. We are not about to run out of it. The ratio over 100 years has been 47:1—47 ounces of silver per ounce of gold. In a financial collapse, the ratio actually goes higher. I could see silver going to 100:1 before it goes 30:1. But, the primary factor in the price of anything is the cost of production. Silver costs $6–8/oz to produce, so $32/oz silver is pretty expensive.

TGR: So you would want to look at junior production companies that would still be profitable with silver at $10/oz?

BM: The silver companies would still be extraordinarily cheap even if silver went to $15/oz.

TGR: Do you have any other companies with no-lose drill programs or other nice surprises in store on your radar?

BM: Dozens of companies have done exceptionally well. I just came back from two weeks in Colombia, where virtually everything is a slam-dunk. Sunward Resources Ltd. (SWD:TSX.V) is going to be announcing really extraordinary results. It already has about 8.6 Moz. That’s an extraordinary amount of resources for a company only two years old.

TGR: If Sunward is still drilling, how big might that get?

BM: A lot bigger.

TGR: Double?

BM: Could be.

TGR: In what timeframe?

BM: Two years.

TGR: Any others you’d care to mention in Colombia?

BM: Colombia Crest Gold Corp. (CLB:TSX.V; EAT:Fkft), Red Eagle Mining Corp. (RD:TSX.V), B2Gold Corp. (BTO:TSX; BGLPF:OTCQX), Bellhaven Copper and Gold Inc. (BHV:TSX.V), Solvista Gold Corp. (SVV:TSX.V) and Continental Gold Ltd. (CNL:TSX). But, there are 36 listed companies in Columbia, and I don’t think you could go wrong investing there.

TGR: So Colombia as a region is a good play.

BM: It’s a phenomenal play.

TGR: You’re also big on Africa.

BM: I used to be, but Africa is getting really stupid. Tanzania’s come up with suggestions and changes to the mining laws. Ghana’s started getting greedy. In every business cycle when the cost of the commodities goes up countries start thinking, “You know, we hate to see these guys making all this money so we need to make sure it won’t happen.”

TGR: So Africa’s fallen out of favor.

BM: Australia, Peru and Argentina are also getting stupid.

TGR: Do you hold better hope for the U.S. on the mining front?

BM: The U.S. has some really wonderful properties in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon. The western part of the country was wealthy due to mining and we are going to go back to that. I think the U.S. will split up into a series of five or six nation states. Florida has nothing in common with California and California has nothing in common with New York. But again, the U.S. as we know it might not exist a year from now.

Take a look at what I said a few years ago about riots in the United States. Occupy Wall Street started in September. It was a peaceful demonstration. There was no crime. There was no violence. The police started it by barricading young women behind the net and then spraying them in the face with pepper spray.

Occupy Wall Street hit a nerve in Americans and spread all over the country. When it got to Oakland, the police decided they needed to up the ante, so they started firing teargas grenades in the face of an Iraqi War veteran from 10 feet away. If I did that, I’d be in jail for attempted murder. Since a policeman did it, he got away with it. They beat another protester so severely with batons they put him in the hospital in critical condition with a damaged spleen. They have pepper-sprayed priests, 84-year-old women and pregnant women. And these are all peaceful protesters.

The key to understanding what is going on is the police continue to escalate the violence. The next thing will be something similar to Kent State, where they plant an agent provocateur who will fire a gun into the air and the police will take that as permission to start shooting protesters. When that happens, it will literally start a civil war—and it could happen any day.

TGR: That’s not like citizens of one state going against citizens of another state because they have fundamental differences.

BM: No, it would be a civil war of peaceful citizens against a violent, corrupt, out-of-control government. We have every bit of that now. The police are the ones doing the escalation, and sooner or later Americans will start defending themselves. If it had been my son or daughter who was shot in the face, I don’t know what my reaction would be. Those protestors all have parents and brothers and sisters and friends. I’m shocked at the willingness of police to escalate violence against people who are no threat to them at all. It could get really bloody really quickly.

TGR: Why do you think this is Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy Pennsylvania Avenue?

BM: The term should be AWA—Americans with an Attitude. I think that these protests are underway in 113 cities, so obviously a lot of Americans in a lot of locations are angry.

• 23% of Americans are angry because they’re unemployed.
• 46 million Americans are angry because they are on food stamps.
• 50% of mortgage holders are angry because their mortgages are under water.

Everyone knows they have been raped by Wall Street and the government. The common theme is anger. We are angry at big business and we are angry at government.

Big business owns government. You have to go after big business. Barack Obama and this administration are totally controlled by external forces. They are controlled by Israel, Wall Street and the media. But we do not have an activist government that’s actually doing anything. It’s totally corrupt, bought and paid for. Everyone in Congress, with the exception of Ron Paul, has turned into a pimp.

TGR: That’s why congressional approval is as low as what―18%?

BM: 7%. The devil does better than that. Someone did a survey a week or so ago comparing Congress to Satan and Satan came up with an 8% approval rate.

Convinced that gold and silver were at their bottoms, and wanting to give others a foundation for investing in resource stocks, Bob and Barb Moriarty brought 321gold.com to the Internet 10 years ago, and later added 321energy.com to cover oil, natural gas, gasoline, coal, solar, wind and nuclear energy. Both sites feature articles, editorial opinions, pricing figures and updates on relevant current events. Before his Internet career, Moriarty was a Marine F-4B pilot and O-1C/G forward air controller with more than 820 missions in Vietnam. A captain at age 22, he was the youngest naval aviator in Vietnam and one of the war’s most highly decorated. He holds 14 international aviation records, and once flew an airplane through the Eiffel Tower’s pillars “just for fun.”