Gold CAN Still Go Down; Trading Against Jim Rogers and Richard Russell; Worst Case Scenarios Already "Priced In"

So Gold CAN Still Go Down, After All

Last week was shaping up to be another banner one for gold, as the old relic kept on climbing, day after day...that is, until it stopped.

Gold's one-way rise experienced a sharp setback on Friday, dropping nearly $50 on the day, and over $60 in intraday measures.

Friday was the biggest down day for gold in some time.

(Source: Barchart.com)

Perhaps related, perhaps not, The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that China is wary of the danger of a gold "bubble" (hat tip to my good friend and regular reader Super Joe for sending this link along).

Hu Xiaolian, the vice-governor of the central bank, said Beijing would not buy gold indiscriminately.

“We must keep in mind the long-term effects when considering what to use as our reserves,” she said. “We must watch out for bubbles forming on certain assets and be careful in those areas.”

China announced this year that it had quietly doubled its gold reserves to 1,054 tonnes, the world’s fifth largest holding. India has also joined the rush, gobbling up half the IMF’s gold sale.

China's ever-increasing interest has spawned the popular gold bull theory that the Chinese have established a "$1,000 floor" price for the metal. In other words, with the Chinese buying up more gold on the dips, one needn't worry about the possibility of gold ever dipping down to triple-digit territory ever again.

The only problem with theories like this is that, however sound they may appear, they are usually wrong. The market takes great delight in squashing "absolute" myths and theories, and I suspect this one will be no different.

But - you may interject - with the government printing money like it's going out of style, won't that result in rising price inflation, and rising gold prices? It sure may - I just suspect that it will take longer than most investors anticipate, thanks to the massive amounts of credit that will be written off in the coming years, resulting in some wicked near-term debt deflation.

Trading Against Our Hero, Jim Rogers

Anytime you find yourself on the other side of the trade from Jim Rogers, you probably want to seriously reconsider your position.

That's where we find ourselves now, though, with Rogers continuing to reiterate his distaste for the dollar. To be honest, I don't like the dollar fundamentally either, but believe that paradoxically, it's due to rise in the near term because of its inherent flaws.

In other words, I agree with everything Rogers says, except for his timing. We'll see who's right - I wouldn't blame you one bit for siding with Rogers - but I'm sticking to my guns on this one...at least for now.

And...Richard Russell, While We're At It

The Great Richard Russell believes that gold is going to move higher, no matter what happens, according to The Daily Crux.

Question -- What would it mean if Industrials and Transports broke out to joint new highs?

Answer -- I think it would mean that the Bernanke Fed was beginning to win the war against deflation, and assets were once more beginning to inflate. In that case, gold should move higher.

Question -- What would it mean if this advance topped out, and the bear market was taking over again?

Answer -- I think it would mean that the Fed had lost its battle against inflation. If that was the case, I believe the Fed would spend even more, there would be even more stimulus programs and interest rates would remain at zero "for the duration." In that case, gold should move higher.

(Source: The Daily Crux)

Well I hate to trade against Russell too - a true legend. But, the dollar bull/gold bear camp is so deserted, that I guess it just comes with the territory that our favorite investors will be on the other side of the trade...because there are so few on our side!

Why Worst Case Scenarios are Already "Priced Into" These Markets

Tom Dyson, one of my favorite investment writers/analysts, is also one of the very few lone soles left in the debt deflation / dollar bull camp (last one out, please turn out the lights!)

Last week, Tom penned an article that I thought articulated the case for a near term dollar rally brilliantly - and our good friends at Stansberry & Associates were kind enough to allow us to reprint the piece in it's entirety here.

Positions Update - Still Really Short the S&P, Long the Dollar

Nothing's changed here - still waiting for the dollar to bottom, and the S&P to top. It's been a maddening wait.

We think the dollar is the lynchpin to the whole equation, and that a dollar bottoming should roughly coincide with a top in the other markets. Friday was an encouraging sign, as the dollar rallied sharply. Has it finally put in a low? We shall see!

The dollar rallied sharply on Friday to end the week - did this mark the start of a mega-rally?

(Source: Barchart.com)

Though this rally appears to be running on fumes, it's still running...at least for now.

(Source: Barchart.com)

Open positions:

Thanks for reading!

Current Account Value: $17,217.50

Cashed out: $20,000.00
Total value: $37,217.50
2009 Returns: Ugh, too depressing to calculate right now...

Prior yearly returns:
2008: -8%
2007: 175%
2006: 60%
2005: 805%

Initial trading stake: $2,000

Three Sanity Checks at this Key Inflation-Deflation Inflection Point

I think we're at a key inflection point in the financial markets at this juncture. The direction that things head next could decide the winner, at least for the next few years, of the inflation vs. deflation battle.

So I spent the morning revisiting and rereading many of my favorite arguments from both sides of the debate, and came up with three key metrics for us to revisit.

First, let me lay a little groundwork and list my preexisting assumptions:

• My timeframe is defined as the next 3 years. After that, we may well see hyperinflation and/or a true crash in the dollar - but for the sake of this argument, I want to look at the next 3 years only (reason being, if you misplay the next 3 years, you could be toast anyway!)

• I accept the Fed's ability to "print" money.

• I also believe that inflation is preferable to the government, and given the choice between inflation and deflation, they will inflate (or at least attempt to) every time. Also, massive government deficits certainly make inflation all the more tempting.

When revisiting my favorite arguments for both sides, I noticed that three central themes were the focus of much of the debate:

1. Inflation will occur when the banks start lending again.
2. The demand for money, or prevailing social mood, will determine if consumers trade in their cash for anything (leading to inflation), or if they hoard their cash to pay down debt (leading to debt deflation.)
3. Stock prices will reflect a goosing of the money supply.

Checkpoint 1: Inflation requires an increase in bank lending

Thanks to the wonders of our fractional reserve banking system, where banks are only required to have a fraction of the money they lend out, bank lending has a tremendous multiplier effect on the money supply. During times of expanding credit (2002 - 2007 most recently), this effect was felt in full force, as loose credit led to a bubble in nearly all asset markets.

Since the credit crisis began, banks have significantly curtailed their lending. While the Federal government has boosted the balance sheets of the big banks, there has not been a proportionate growth in loans (see chart below).

Source: The Daily Reckoning

Herein lies the rub - bank lending has not picked up, at least yet. Check out the graph below, courtesy of the St. Louis Fed:

Conclusion: As long as bank lending continues to decline, it's difficult to make an argument for inflation. However, if and when this chart begins ticking up once again, that will be a strong indicator that inflation may be on the way.

Checkpoint 2: The demand for money and prevailing social mood

From World War II until 2007, the world was a place of expanding credit. This growth was driven by consumer demand for credit, which was particularly strong in the US. That is the key point - that the growth was driven by from the demand side, which in turn, resulted in increasing supply.

While many blame Alan Greenspan for creating a housing bubble this decade with artificially low interest rates, it's important to consider the role that consumers played in that spectacle. Greenspan was only giving the populace what it wanted - more credit. He may have spiked the punch bowl, but only at the insistence of the drunken party goers!

Today, with mortgage rates still near historic lows, we have no housing bubble any longer. In fact, we have a plummeting housing market. Why?

Because there's no demand for credit. Consumers are choking on debt - they are screaming "No Mas!"

Can the Fed inflate the asset markets one more time? They are trying like hell, but they'll only be successful if the social mood in the United States permits it.

One of the major reasons Japan was never able to reignite another bubble after 1989 is that the mood of consumers permanently shifted. The demand for money increased - consumers wanted to hoard it. They did not want to speculate, or trade it in for assets.

Did the social mood of the US permanently change in 2007?

One tea leaf worth paying attention to is the demographics card. By 2007, the US had some noteworthy demographic parallels with Japan of 1989 (ie. we're getting old). Though we are not "as screwed" as Japan in terms of demographics, thanks to immigration and somewhat higher birth rates, we've peaked demographically as a country, at least until further notice.

Conclusion: Demand for money, and social mood, are admittedly challenging to measure in an objective manner. There may have been a permanent shift in 2007 - if so, the Fed may find that, like Japan, it's "pushing on a string" in terms of trying to change consumer behavior and attitudes towards debt.

Checkpoint 3: Monetary goosing will show up in stocks, especially financials, first

According to Milton Friedman, the script for inflation roughly goes like this:

1. Increase the money supply
2. The new money goes into stocks first, increasing stock prices
3. Then economic activity increases (a false boom)
4. Then the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rises

Sure appears like the script is playing out to a tee. With regards to stocks, we've seen that financial stocks have been the strongest performers, which you'd probably expect in an inflationary boomlet.

But - this market rally has, thus far, only qualified itself as a stellar bear market bounce. We are still in typical retracement territory. Bounces usually retrace roughly half of their losses - often even more. The 2009 bounce is currently eerily similar to the 1930 bounce in terms of magnitude.

Conclusion: The jury is still out on what has actually driven this stock market rally. We could be at an important inflection point. If the market continues to head higher, the case that it's being driven by inflation will strengthen. If it makes new highs, that would probably seal it.

On the flip side, if the market turns down from here, then all we saw this summer and autumn was a classic bear market bounce.

Bottom Line: The coming months will be very interesting, and hopefully quite insightful, in terms of illuminating which side is winning the inflation/deflation battle. It's too close to call just yet in my opinion, as both scripts have been fulfilled thus far. But we could be near a fork in the road!

Some More Good Reading

• An insightful look at whether or not earnings really drive stock prices.

• Marc Faber's inflation paradox thesis.

• Jim Rogers' latest outlook on commodities, investing, the economy

• China's non-confirmation of crude's new high

• Christina Romer: Contrarian indicator extraordinaire?

• Comedy - The Onion: Financial tips from a stalker

Positions Update - Still Long the Buck

It looks like the broader markets may, at last, be rolling over. Which should be bullish for the buck.

The dollar - gearing up for another megarally?

(Source: Barchart.com)

Open positions:

Thanks for reading!

Current Account Value: $23,859.83

Cashed out: $20,000.00
Total value: $43,859.83
Weekly return: -1.9%
2009 YTD return: -53%

Prior yearly returns:
2008: -8%
2007: 175%
2006: 60%
2005: 805%

Initial trading stake: $2,000.00

Inflation Investing - A Historical Perspective on What To Do

On Friday I was having a discussion with my friend about inflation, speculating about what may happen to stock prices if inflation were to take hold. Both of us are big fans of Marc Faber, so we were discussing the scenario that Faber has been predicting - that if cash is about to become trash thanks to government money printing, you want to get into tangible assets, including stocks, to protect yourself.

But what really happens to stock prices during inflationary times? You could slice and dice the discussion many different ways from an academic perspective...but the more I thought about it, the more interested I became in digging out historical examples.

Then I remembered that Faber himself had a great chapter in his book Tomorrow's Gold that is entitled The Economics of Inflation.

So, I reread the chapter today.

The Paradox of Inflation

Faber discovered that stock markets of countries that are experiencing very high rates of inflation can become very undervalued in real terms, creating tremendous buying opportunities for the astute and courageous investor.

The reason, Faber says, is that currency depreciation, due to "massive capital flight", overcompensates for domestic inflation, creating stock market values that are truly outstanding. When inflation subsides from extreme levels, equities can realize substantial gains in real terms.

Everyone knows the common playbook for investing through inflation is to buy metals and short bonds. But according to the data Faber presents, it can also be a great time to buy stocks for cheap.

And the higher the rate of inflation, or the worse the hyperinflationary scenario, the greater the buying opportunity generally is. Faber takes a look at examples from Argentina 1977-1987, Germany from 1919-1923, Latin America in the 1980s, and Russia after the fall of communism. And all four examples revealed tremendous buying opportunities for stocks - especially if you bought during the height of the inflation.

Interestingly Faber also cites the opposite case - that countries with low rates of inflation tend to have richly valued equity markets. Such as Japan in the late 1980s, or the Western world in the late 1990s. Goldilocks is not so kind to buy and hold investors.

Overall these findings seem to jive with the old investing adage that you should buy when there's "blood in the streets" - and conversely be cautious when the sun is shining.

I'd like to add that Germany's hyperinflation is often blamed for the rise of Hitler and, ultimately, World War II. However Faber says that hyperinflation in Germany actually ended in 1923, with the institution of a new currency. Thereafter, Germany boomed for the rest of the decade, and was quite prosperous up until the depression.

I think history shows that governments can put the breaks on inflation real quick, if they have the stomach and motivation to do so. Germany did it in 1923. Paul Volcker slayed the inflation dragon in the early 1980's.

So it appears that purchasing stocks today in anticipation of inflation or hyperinflation may not yet be the right move. While stock prices would increase in nominal terms, they may become undervalued in real terms - at which point you'd want to be a buyer.

Intel - More Big Results, But Stock Sells Off After

On Tuesday, Intel announced good earnings and an upbeat outlook for the second straight quarter. Initially, the stock popped - only to trade lower for the remainder of the week. INTC currently sits below where it was at when it announced earnings.

INTC popped higher after its earnings report, but the rally stalled.

(Source: Barchart.com)

Perhaps all of this good news was already priced into Intel's stock price? If that's the case, I'd imagine there are many stocks that you could say the same thing about.

Some More Good Reading

• Guru Robert Prechter shares why he believes fundamental analysis is always trumped by technical analysis.

• A scary chart of US consumer credit, which continues to nosedive.

• Colorado's minimum wage is set to - drop?

• Chinese indices have not yet confirmed the new highs in US equities

• Finally, you can now buy physical gold bars in a famed UK department store.

Positions Update - Still Long the Buck

Well I was either early or wrong on the dollar call, and as far as trading goes, that's basically the same thing!

This is why calling a bottom before it's actually put in is indeed a fool's game. And I fell into the trap yet again.

Although I still like this trade, I should have waited for an uptrend. As is, I'll continue to hold the position, and wait for the break up that we're anticipating.

Oops - you want to be short charts like these!

(Source: Barchart.com)

Open positions:

Thanks for reading!

Current Account Value: $24,309.83

Cashed out: $20,000.00
Total value: $44,309.83
Weekly return: -1.9%
2009 YTD return: -52.2% (Yikes!)

Prior yearly returns:
2008: -8%
2007: 175%
2006: 60%
2005: 805%

Initial trading stake: $2,000.00