Tags: oil

Brent Crude Trades over $100/bbl on Egyptian Unrest

Published on: 01/31/2011
Comments: No Comments

Oil prices broke through the $100 a barrel level for the first time in more than two years, amid market fears that Egypt’s turmoil will hit oil flows.

Although both the Suez Canal and a pipeline linking the Red Sea with the Mediterranean continue to operate, the popular uprising to unseat Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president, has brought much of the rest of the economy to a halt.

The army said on Monday it would not use force against Egyptians staging protests demanding President Mubarak step down, a statement said. It said “freedom of expression” was guaranteed to all citizens using peaceful means.

This is the first such explicit confirmation by the army that it would not fire at demonstrators who have taken to the streets of Egypt since last week to try to force Mr Mubarak to quit.

Egypt’s new vice-president Omar Suleiman said on Monday he had been asked to start dialogue with “all political forces” – including on constitutional and legislative reform, a key demand voiced by anti-Mubarak protesters.

The constitutional amendments include easing restrictions on those who eligible to run in presidential election. “The president has asked me today to immediately hold contacts with the political forces to start a dialogue about all raised issues that also involve constitutional and legislative reforms in a form that will result in clear proposed amendments and a specific timetable for its implementation,” Mr Suleiman said in a televised address.

Local and foreign companies have suspended operations, while holidaymakers are rushing to airports in an effort to evacuate the country.

As the stand-off between protesters and Mr Mubarak escalates, activists are preparing for what some have dubbed a million-strong march today.

At entrances to Tahrir square in Cairo, young men held up signs saying “One million march. 10am. Down with Mubarak.”

Mr Mubarak, who is facing the gravest threat to his 30-year rule over the Arab world’s most populous country, named a new cabinet to replace ministers close to his son, and presumed heir, Gamal.
More FT video

“The people are calling for regime change, not for a change of government,” said Osama el-Ghazali Harb, leader of the opposition Democratic Front party. “These are all moves to buy time.” Although Egypt is itself a small oil producer, the Suez Canal is an important waterway for shipments of Middle Eastern oil. A detour around the southern tip of Africa would add about 6,000 miles to transit routes from the Middle East to Europe and the US.

Brent crude, the global benchmark, surged to an intraday high of $101.19 per barrel, the highest since September 2008.

“It is something that we are, as you can imagine for our economy and for the recovery of the global economy, watching quite closely,” said Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary.

“We are extremely concerned about the Middle East situation,” said Marco Dunand, chief executive of Geneva-based Mercuria, one of the world’s biggest oil traders. “This is going to increase volatility substantially.”

Lawrence Eagles, head of oil research at JPMorgan, said that the primary risk from the turmoil was its “potential to act as a catalyst [for] unrest in countries that are otherwise seen as stable”, including Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

Fearing a contagion effect, Arab leaders have shown support for Mr Mubarak, hoping that he can quell the fury on the streets. On Monday the embattled president named a retired police investigator to take over the interior ministry.

Police have been blamed for more than 100 deaths since Egypt’s uprising erupted a week ago and forces melted away on the weekend, leaving residents in major cities to face looters and criminals released from prisons.

Samir Radwan, a respected development economist, was appointed the new finance minister. Acknowledging that his tenure might be short-lived, he told the Financial Times: “Let us hope we can save the situation and bring stability to our country. We owe a lot to the people on the street, and will respond to their calls. That’s the only reason I accepted the job.”

But analysts said the government has in mind the small legal parties, rather than the group of young activists, intellectuals and parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which have been co-operating with Mohamed ElBaradei, the reform advocate and Nobel laureate who has taken on a leading role in the protests.

Politicians working with Mr ElBaradei said that, in any case, they were not interested in talks with the prime minister in any case. “Of course we would not go to talks,” said Mr el-Ghazali Harb.

Additional reporting by Daniel Dombey in Washington

Oil Price Enters ‘Danger Zone’ – Financial Times

Published on: 01/04/2011
Comments: No Comments

High oil prices threaten to derail the fragile economic recovery among developed nations this year, the leading energy watchdog has warned, putting pressure on the Opec oil cartel to increase production.

Over the past year the oil import costs for the 34 mostly rich countries that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have soared by $200bn to $790bn at the end of 2010, according to an analysis by the International Energy Agency.

The increase, due to high crude prices, is equal to a loss of income of about 0.5 per cent of OECD gross domestic product, according to the IEA.

“Oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the global economy,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist. “The oil import bills are becoming a threat to the economic recovery. This is a wake-up call to the oil consuming countries and to the oil producers.”

Oil prices have edged closer to $100 a barrel in recent weeks and Brent crude hit $95 a barrel for the first time in 27 months on Monday as the economic recovery has gathered pace.

Although oil prices dropped on Tuesday, the warning from the IEA will put pressure on Opec to increase its production. Despite the high prices, oil ministers decided last month to leave their quotas unchanged.

Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, repeated at the time that he favoured an oil price of “$70 to $80 a barrel” and that there were no plans to convene an extraordinary meeting before June 2 this yeaOilr.

However, according to Mr Birol, “it is not in the interest of anyone to see such high prices”.

OECD countries account for about 65 per cent of all global oil imports, he said. “Oil exporters need clients with healthy economies but these high prices will sooner or later make the economies sick, which would mean the need for importing oil will be less.”

In the very short term, therefore, “it may not be a bad idea that the producers are ready to increase production and show their understanding that these high prices are not good for the global economy,” he added.

Oil consuming nations, meanwhile, need to accelerate their efforts to reduce their reliance on oil, especially for transportation, he said. According to the IEA’s analysis, the European Union has seen its import bill rise by $70bn during 2010, equal to the combined budget deficits of Greece and Portugal.

On top of the high crude prices, Europe is still to feel the full impact of higher gas prices as 75 per cent of its gas contracts are linked to oil prices. The weak euro against the US dollar will also amplify the cost.

The US, meanwhile, has seen its bill jump by $72bn. Japan, which imports more than 99 per cent of its energy needs from oil, gas and coal, is paying an additional $27bn. Less developed nations are also being hit, seeing their bill rise by $20bn, equal to a loss of income of almost 1 per cent of GDP.

The ratio of countries’ oil import bills to GDP, a key measure of the cost of oil prices on economies, is close to levels last seen during the financial crisis in 2008, Mr Birol warned.

If oil prices remain above $90/barrel for the rest of this year then the ratio for the European Union will be 2.1 per cent – close to the 2.2 per cent level it reached in 2008.

“It is a very telling story. 2010 rang the first alarm bells and 2011 price levels could bring us to the same financial crisis times that we saw in 2008,” said Mr Birol.

FT – New Food Crisis Fears as Prices Soar

The bill for global food imports will top $1,000bn this year for the second time ever, putting the world “dangerously close” to a new food crisis, the United Nations said.

The warning by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation adds to fears about rising inflation in emerging countries from China to India. “Prices are dangerously close to the levels of 2007-08,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist at the FAO.

The FAO painted a worrying outlook in its twice-yearly Food Outlook on Wednesday, warning that the world should “be prepared” for even higher prices next year. It said it was crucial for farmers to “expand substantially” production, particularly of corn and wheat in 2011-12 to meet expected demand and rebuild world reserves.

But the FAO said the production response may be limited as rising food prices had made other crops, from sugar to soyabean and cotton, attractive to grow.

“This could limit individual crop production responses to levels that would be insufficient to alleviate market tightness. Against this backdrop, consumers may have little choice but to pay higher prices for their food,” it said.

The agency raised its forecast for the global bill for food to $1,026bn this year, up nearly 15 per cent from 2009 and within a whisker of an all-time high of $1,031bn set in 2008 during the food crisis.

“With the pressure on world prices of most commodities not abating, the international community must remain vigilant against further supply shocks in 2011,” the FAO added. In the 10 years before the 2007-08 food crisis, the global bill for food imports averaged less than $500bn a year.

Hafez Ghanem, FAO assistant director-general, dismissed claims that speculators were behind recent price gains, saying that supply shortages were causing the rise.

Agricultural commodities prices have surged following a series of crop failures caused by bad weather.

The situation was aggravated when top producers such as Russia and Ukraine imposed export restrictions, prompting importers in the Middle East and North Africa to hoard supplies. The weakness of the US dollar, in which most food commodities are denominated, has also contributed to higher prices.

The FAO’s food index, a basket tracking the wholesale cost of wheat, corn, rice, oilseeds, dairy products, sugar and meats, jumped last month to levels last seen at the peak of the 2007-08 crisis. The index rose in October to 197.1 points – up nearly 5 per cent from September.

Agricultural commodities prices have fallen over the past week amid a sell-off in global markets, but analysts and traders continue to expect higher prices in 2011.

Survey Economists Bet on $500 Billion of QE

The Federal Reserve will probably introduce an unprecedented second round of unconventional monetary easing tomorrow by announcing a plan to buy at least $500 billion of long-term securities, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

Policy makers meeting today and tomorrow will restart a program of securities purchases to spur growth, reduce unemployment and increase inflation, said 53 of 56 economists surveyed last week. Twenty-nine estimated the Fed will pledge to buy $500 billion or more, while another seven predicted $50 billion to $100 billion in monthly purchases without a specified total. The remainder said the Fed would buy up to $500 billion or didn’t quantify their forecast.

The varied responses reflect differences among Fed officials over the total amount of purchases needed to bolster the recovery. Policy makers, pursuing unprecedented stimulus, have cut the benchmark rate almost to zero and bought $1.7 trillion in securities without generating growth fast enough to bring down unemployment from near a 26-year high.

“There’s no silver bullet right now” and central bankers have “very few options left in terms of lowering interest rates,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in Charlotte, North Carolina. He predicted $500 billion of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities purchases in the next six months.

Shock-and-Awe Plan

Disagreements among policy makers over whether to expand the balance sheet incrementally or stage a so-called shock-and- awe program of big asset purchases have created confusion among investors over the likely size and duration of any new easing, said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies & Co. in New York.

“There has not been a uniformity of opinion emanating from the multitude of public appearances from Fed officials,” McCarthy said. He predicts the Fed will buy $500 billion of securities over the next six months and was among 13 economists who said the purchases would include mortgage-backed bonds in addition to Treasuries.

New York Fed President William Dudley set expectations at $500 billion in purchases when he said in an Oct. 1 speech that purchases totaling about that amount would add as much stimulus as lowering the Fed’s benchmark rate by 0.5 percentage point to 0.75 percentage point.

Dudley put the $500 billion figure “in there and it sounded like he was trying to move it along in that direction,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, who predicts the Fed will announce up to $500 billion of purchases by March.

Many Variables

Referring to investor expectations of the central bank’s next move, Rupkey said, “It’s a mess, and it’s just because there’s too many variables between the amount and the time period.”

St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said on Oct. 21 the Fed should buy $100 billion in long-term Treasuries this month and calibrate subsequent purchases based on the course of the economy. Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart said that a pace of $100 billion of purchases a month is “in the range of numbers one might consider.”

Estimates by economists about the duration of a Fed asset purchase program ranged from as short as three months to as long as the end of 2011. Three analysts said the Federal Open Market Committee wouldn’t announce new stimulus.

Favorable Reaction

“It’s highly unlikely that anyone’s going to get all the details right because going into the meeting Fed officials themselves won’t have agreed on all of” them, Jefferies’ McCarthy said. He said he expects the Fed to buy mortgage-backed securities because it would be a positive surprise, and the central bank wants a “favorable market reaction.”

The lack of clarity over the Fed’s plans has played out in the Treasury market, which handed investors a loss of 0.18 percent in October, the first negative monthly return since March, according to index data compiled by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. After falling to 2.38 percent on Oct. 7 from 2.51 percent on Sept. 30, the yield on 10-year Treasuries has since climbed to 2.63 percent as of late yesterday, Bloomberg data show.

Not all Fed officials agree the central bank should start new stimulus measures. Kansas City’s Thomas Hoenig, who has already dissented six straight times, said on Oct. 25 that he opposes more easing because it’s “a very dangerous gamble” that may accelerate inflation and create asset-price bubbles. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher and the Philadelphia Fed’s Charles Plosser have also spoken out since the FOMC’s last meeting against more action by the central bank.

Asset Bubbles

“When money is too easy for too long, we will have more” asset bubbles, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, an adviser to President Barack Obama, said today in Singapore.

Chicago Fed President Charles Evans said several times last month that the central bank needs to take action and should buy securities on a large scale to carry out his preferred strategy of aiming to raise inflation temporarily.

“They’re in uncharted waters here, and no one really knows, we’re all guessing” about the size and duration of the easing program and its ultimate impact, said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “I haven’t seen anybody out there who has made a convincing case that this is anything but a trivial boost for the economy.”

Expectations

The central bank last month asked bond dealers and investors for projections of its asset purchases over the next six months, along with the likely effect on yields. The New York Fed, the branch of the Fed System that implements monetary policy, asked about expectations for the size of the program and the time over which it would be completed, according to a survey obtained by Bloomberg News.

Stanley predicted the Fed will opt for the incremental tactic and announce a program to buy $200 billion of Treasuries by its Jan. 26 meeting.

“They want to preserve flexibility and to have the option of tweaking the pace as they go based on whatever it is that they choose to look at,” Stanley said.

“Clearly the thrust of this is to get long-term rates lower, but when you listen to what they say about it, they don’t even plan to get a lot of juice out of what they want to do,” he said. “What does that do for the economy?”

Dudley, who is also vice chairman of the FOMC, said in the Oct. 1 speech that the central bank would probably need to act to address “unacceptable” job growth and inflation.

Inflation Eases

The U.S. economy expanded at a 2 percent annual rate in the third quarter and inflation cooled, Commerce Department figures showed Oct. 29 in Washington. The report showed the inflation gauge watched by the Fed rose the least in almost two years as retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp. use discounts to lure shoppers.

In addition to a new round of asset purchases, policy makers are also considering efforts to boost public expectations that inflation will rise, according to the minutes of the FOMC’s Sept. 21 meeting.

All but two economists predict the Fed will leave the interest rate on excess reserves unchanged at 0.25 percent. Fifteen analysts, including McCarthy, say the Fed will alter the phrase that its benchmark interest rate will stay near zero for an “extended period,” which was introduced in March 2009.

“They’ve been telling us they’ve been considering a change to the ‘extended period,’ so at some point they’re going to do it and this is as good a time as any,” McCarthy said.

The questions were as follows:

1a. At the FOMC’s Nov. 2-3 meeting, will the committee decide to (choose one):

a) Retain the current policy of keeping a constant level of the Fed’s securities holdings by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities

b) Increase the level of securities holdings through additional asset purchases

Result (56 replies): A, 3; B, 53.

1b. If you answered (b) to the last question, please provide your predictions on the following possible elements of the announcement:

a. The amount of additional purchases announced in billions

of dollars:

b. The length of time for the additional purchases to be

completed:

c. The types of securities to be purchased:

1) Treasuries

2) mortgage-backed securities

3) both Treasuries and MBS

4) other (please elaborate)

Result (53 replies): a) 29 expect $500 billion or more; 7 predicted monthly purchases of $50 billion to $100 billion without specifying a total; 12 predicted up to $500 billion; 5 didn’t specify an amount.

b) 7 predicted monthly purchases with no timeline; 9 predicted up to three months; 17 said between three and six months; 9 said between six months and one year; 5 said through 2011; 6 didn’t specify a pace or timeline.

c) 38 said Treasuries (including Treasury-Inflation Protected Securities); 13 said both Treasuries and MBS (including one that also predicted agency bond purchases); 2 didn’t specify.

2. Will the FOMC statement following the Nov. 2-3 meeting include any changes to the following sentence: “The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.” Yes or no.

Results (49 replies): Yes, 15; No, 34.

3. Will the Fed decide at the Nov. 2-3 meeting to reduce the 0.25 percent interest rate on excess reserves? Yes or no.

Results (47 replies): Yes, 2; No, 45.

Chart of the Day

Published on: 10/27/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Anyone who cares to see who received the benefits of the stimulus needs to look no further….
Stimulus Recipients

Martenson: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

Chris Martenson

By my analysis, we are not yet on the final path to recovery, and there are one or more financial ‘breaks’ coming in the future.  Underlying structural weaknesses have not been resolved, and the kick-the-can-down-the-road plan is going to encounter a hard wall in the not-too-distant future.  When the next moment of discontinuity finally arrives, events will unfold much more rapidly than most people expect.

My work centers on figuring out which macro trends are in play and then helping people to adjust accordingly.  Based on trends in fiscal and monetary policy, I began advising accumulation of gold and silver in 2003 and 2004.  I shorted home builder stocks beginning in 2006 and ending in 2008.  These were not ‘great’ calls; they were simply spotting trends in play, one beginning and one certain to end, and then taking appropriate actions based on those trends.

We happen to live in a non-linear world; a core concept of the Crash Course.  But far too many people expect events to unfold in a more or less orderly manner, with plenty of time to adjust along the way.  In other words, linearly.  The world does not always cooperate, and my concern rests on the observation that we still face the convergence of multiple trends, each of which alone has the power to permanently transform our economic landscape and standards of living.

Three such trends (out of the many I track) that will shape our immediate future are:

  • Peak Oil
  • Sovereign insolvency
  • Currency debasement

Individually, these worry me quite a bit; collectively, they have my full attention.

History suggests that instead of a nice smooth line heading either up or down, markets have a pronounced habit of jolting rather suddenly into a new orbit, either higher or lower.  Social moods are steady for long periods, and then they shift.  This is what we should train ourselves to expect.

No smooth lines between points A and B; instead, long periods of quiet, followed by short bursts of reformation and volatility.  Periods of market equilibrium, followed by Minsky moments.  In the language of the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, we live in a system governed by the rules of “punctuated equilibrium.”

Complex Systems

Our economy is a complex system.  The key feature of such systems is that they are inherently unpredictable with respect to the timing and severity of specific events.  For the uninitiated, they can look enormously fragile and prone to flying apart at any minute; for the seasoned observer, there is an appreciation that the immense inertia of the economic system will almost always delay and dampen the eventual adjustments.

Like everybody else, I have no idea exactly what’s going to happen, or precisely when.  Anybody who says they do know should be greeted with a furrowed brow and a frown of suspicion.  As my long-time readers know, I prefer to assess the risks and then take steps to mitigate those risks based on likelihood and impact.

Which means that although we cannot predict the size (exactly how much) or the timing (precisely when) of economic shifts or world-changing events, we can certainly understand the risks and the dimensions of what might happen.  Just as we cannot predict when an avalanche will release from steep slope, or even where or how big it will be, we can readily predict that constant snowfall coupled with the right temperature conditions will lead to an avalanche sooner or later, and more likely in this gully than that one.  Given certain conditions, we might expect one that is larger or smaller than normal.  Although we don’t know exactly when or how much, we do know that when snow accumulates, so do the risks of more frequent and/or larger avalanches.

Such is the nature of complex systems.  While inherently unpredictable, they can still be described.  The most important description of any complex system is that it owes its order and complexity to the constant flow of energy through it.  Complex systems require inputs.  This is one way in which we can understand them.

Given this view, one easy “prediction” is that an economy without increasing energy flows running through it will stagnate.  To take this further, an economy that is being starved of energy becomes simpler in the process — meaning fewer jobs, less items produced, and a reduced capacity to support extraneous functions.

Accepting “What Is”

The most important part of this story is getting our minds to accept reality without our passionate beliefs interfering.  By ‘beliefs’ I mean statements like these:

  • “Things always get better and are never as bad as they seem.”
  • “If Peak Oil were ‘real,’ I would be hearing about it from my trusted sources.”
  • “Dwelling on the negative is self-fulfilling.”

While each of these things might be true, they also might be false and therefore misleading, especially during periods of transition.  Our job is to remain as dispassionate and logical as possible.

Let’s now examine more closely the three main events that are converging — Peak Oil, sovereign insolvency, and currency debasement — using as much logic as we can muster.

Peak Oil

Peak Oil is now a matter of open inquiry and debate at the highest levels of industry and government.  Recent reports by Lloyd’s of London, the US Department of Defense, the UK industry task force on Peak Oil, Honda, and the German military are evidence of this.  But when I say “debate,” I am not referring to disagreement over whether or not Peak Oil is real, only when it will finally arrive.  The emerging consensus is that oil demand will outstrip supplies “soon,” within the next five years and maybe as soon as two.  So the correct questions are no longer, “Is Peak Oil real?” and “Are governments aware?” but instead, “When will demand outstrip supply?” and “What implications does this have for me?”

It doesn’t really matter when the actual peak arrives; we can leave that to the ivory-tower types and those with a bent for analytical precision.  What matters is when we hit “peak exports.”  My expectation is that once it becomes fashionable among nation-states to finally admit that Peak Oil is real and here to stay, one or more exporters will withhold some or all of their product “for future generations” or some other rationale (such as, “get a higher price”), which will rather suddenly create a price spiral the likes of which we have not yet seen.

What matters is an equal mixture of actual oil availability and market perception.  As soon as the scarcity meme gets going, things will change very rapidly.

In short, it is time to accept that Peak Oil is real – and plan accordingly.

Sovereign Insolvency

Once we accept the imminent arrival of Peak Oil, then the issue of sovereign insolvency jumps into the limelight.  Why?  Because the hopes and dreams of the architects of the financial rescue entirely rest upon the assumption that economic growth will resume.  Without additional supplies of oil, such growth will not be possible; in fact, we’ll be doing really, really well if we can prevent the economy from backsliding.

Virtually every single OECD country, due to outlandish pension and entitlement programs, has total debt and liability loads that Arnaud Mares (of Morgan Stanley) pointed out have resulted in a negative net worth for the governments of Germany, France, Portugal, the US, the UK, Spain, Ireland, and Greece.  And not by just a little bit, but exceptionally so, ranging from more than 450% of GDP in the case of Germany on the ‘low’ end to well over 1,500% of GDP for Greece.

Such shortfalls cannot possibly be funded out of anything other than a very, very bright economic future.  Something on the order of Industrial Age 2.0, fueled by some amazing new source of wealth.  Logically, how likely is that?  Even if we could magically remove the overhang of debt, what new technologies are on the horizon that could offer the prospect of a brand new economic revival of this magnitude?  None that I am aware of.

In the US, the largest capital market and borrower, even the most optimistic budget estimates foresee another decade of crushing deficits that will grow the official deficit by some $9 trillion and the real (i.e., “accrual” or “unofficial”) deficit by perhaps another $20 to $30 trillion, once we account for growth in liabilities.  This is, without question, an unsustainable trend.

It’s time to admit the obvious:  Debts of these sorts cannot be serviced, now or in the future.  Expanding them further with fingers firmly crossed in hopes of an enormous economic boom that will bail out the system is a fool’s game.  It is little different than doubling down after receiving a bad hand in poker.

The unpleasant implication of various governments going deeper into debt is that a string of sovereign defaults lies in the future.  Due to their interconnected borrowings and lendings, one may topple the next like dominoes.

However, it is when we consider the impact of the widespread realization of Peak Oil on the story of growth that the whole idea of sovereign insolvency really assumes a much higher level of probability.  More on that later.

For now we should accept that there’s almost no chance of growing out from under these mountains of debts and other obligations.  We must move our attention to the shape, timing, and the severity of the aftermath of the economic wreckage that will result from a series of sovereign defaults.

Currency Wars

We could trot out a lot of charts here, examine much of history, and make a very solid case that once a country breaches the 300% debt/liability to GDP ratio, there’s no recovery, only a future containing some form of default (printing or outright).

In a recent post to my enrolled members, I wrote:

The currency wars have begun, and the implications to world stability and wealth could not be more profound. Fortunately, all of my long-time enrolled members are prepared for this outcome, which we’ve been predicting here for some time.

When pressed, the most predictable decision in all of history is to print, print, print.  So I can’t take credit for a ‘prediction’ that was just slightly bolder than ‘predicting’ which way a dropped anvil will travel; down or up?

The only problem is, widespread currency debasements will further destabilize an already rickety global financial system where tens of trillions of fiat dollars flow daily on the currency exchanges.

You can be nearly certain that every single country is seeking a path to a weaker relative currency. The problem is obvious: Everybody cannot simultaneously have a weaker currency. Nor can everybody have a positive trade balance.

If a country or government cannot grow its way out from under its obligations, then printing (a.k.a. currency debasement) takes on additional allure.  It is the “easy way out” and has lots of political support in the home country.  Besides the fact that it has already started, we should consider a global program of currency debasement to be a guaranteed feature of our economic future.

Conclusion (to Part I)

Three unsustainable trends or events have been identified here.  They are not independent, but they are interlocked to a very high degree.  At present I can find no support for the idea that the economy can expand like it has in the past without increasing energy flows, especially oil.  All of the indications point to Peak Oil, or at least “peak exports,” happening within five years.

At that point, it will become widely recognized that most sovereign debts and liabilities will not be able to be serviced by the miracle of economic growth.  Pressures to ease the pain of the resulting financial turmoil and economic stagnation will grow, and currency debasement will prove to be the preferred policy tool of choice.

Instead of unfolding in a nice, linear, straightforward manner, these colliding events will happen quite rapidly and chaotically.

By mentally accepting that this proposition is not only possible, but probable, we are free to make different choices and take actions that can preserve and protect our wealth and mitigate our risks.

What changes in our actions and investment stances are prudent if we assume that Peak Oil, sovereign insolvency, and currency debasement are ‘locks’ for the future?

Matt Simmons Tribute

Published on: 08/09/2010
Categories: Current Events
Comments: 1 Comment

I’d like to take this opportunity to extend condolences, prayers, and well-wishes to the family and friends of Matt Simmons who passed away today. Matt was influential in bringing to light the reality that our world is running out of oil and his work over the past few years will undoubtedly be viewed as essential as we move into a full and public realization of this problem. For those of you who don’t know of Matt or his groundbreaking work, consider reading a copy of his bestseller, ‘Twilight in the Desert’. Rest in Peace Matt, you will be missed.

Income in a Zero-Rate World – Revisited

It has been 18 months now since the original piece of the same name. Quite a lot has happened in those 18 months, but we still have the zero-rate world and along with it all of the accompanying problems. One positive side for fixed-income style investors has been the ability to make nice capital gains on bonds. But how about those who are interested in monthly or quarterly income and don’t wish to trade in and out of traditional fixed income instruments? In this essay, we’ll take a look at the portfolio model that was created 18 months ago and see how it has performed.

One important thing to note is that one of the Canadian Trusts (Harvest Energy) no longer does business by that name. It was purchased by Korean National Oil Corporation (KNOC) at the end of last year. It was perhaps the first casualty of Canada’s ill-fated decision to change the taxing structure for Trusts and it was a big one. Harvest was one of very few vertically integrated Oil & Gas operations, meaning that it owned refinery operations in addition to its exploration and production program. It was viciously attacked by short-sellers during the months leading up to the acquisition and when shareholders were offered a roughly 40% premium over the then $6 and change trading price, they jumped and Harvest was lost.

Trimming your Hedges

The hedging tool used in this particular Portfolio Model was the UltraShort Oil & Gas ETF since it correlated fairly well with the mix of assets represented. However, one of the drawbacks of these ETFs is their propensity to leave gains on the table based on the objectives they pursue. This reality has become somewhat better understood by investors, but let’s go over it again if for no other purpose than to reinforce the point.

From the ProShares website:

“This ETF seeks a return of -200% of the return of an index (target) for a single day. (Emphasis theirs) Due to the compounding of daily returns, ProShares’ returns over periods other than one day will likely differ in amount and possibly direction from the target return for the same period. Investors should monitor their ProShares holdings consistent with their strategies, as frequently as daily. For more on correlation, leverage and other risks, please read the prospectus.

What they’re saying is if you purchase this type of fund and it moves 2X the inverse of the correlated index or security, that if the underlying issue moves down 20%, you would expect the price of the 2X inverse fund to go up 40%. It doesn’t always work that way. Depending on the price action, you could actually end up with a much lower gain, especially if the price action is volatile and choppy.

Again, this is not meant to be an indictment of these types of funds, but rather to point out that no hedge is going to be perfect and you’d better keep your eye on the ball if you want to be successful.

The Sample Portfolio Model

Let’s see how our components have faired over the past 18 months:

Sample Portfolio Model

For the 18 months ended June 2010, the portfolio model is up substantially not counting dividends. Assuming the purchase of the same 100 shares each and 250 shares of DUG as in the original article, our portfolio on 11/20/2008 would have cost us $31,969. As of 7/8/2010, it would be worth $47,964 for an increase of 50%. During the same time, the portfolio threw off $2,634 in dividends making the effective yield of the portfolio 8.24% and bringing in $146.33/month in dividend/distribution income. $146 doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but when you consider deploying a $100,000 or $200,000 portfolio in this fashion, suddenly you’re talking about some very nice cash flow – certainly in excess of what can be found at the local bank. The performance metrics stated above assumed that the positions were all started on 11/20/2008; a significant market bottom. Waiting until 3/6/2009 to begin them would have resulted in slightly higher gains. We put a few of these positions to work in our newsletter portfolio on 3/13/09 and they have performed in spectacular fashion.

Model Performance

During the same period of time, the Dow Jones Industrials are up just 34%, with well under one-half the yield of this model. The S&P500 is up only 33% with just over one quarter the yield of the model.

Conclusions

One thing that has worked extremely well for me in practice is the strategic placement and removal of hedging devices. I am not talking about trading hedges; that is a completely different animal. What I am talking about is searching for multi-month trends and then placing or removing hedges based on the results of that research. For the average investor who has neither the time nor the inclination to get involved at this level, selecting a solid hedge, putting it in place, and monitoring once a week should suffice.

Still other investors who don’t mind potential wild fluctuations in their core holdings, but are interested merely in yield, will construct a similar portfolio and put 100% of their capital to work earning dividends. We could have pumped the yield of our sample model up considerably by doing that, but decided on a more conservative approach and were willing to leave a point or two of yield on the table in favor of more stable performance.

One thing to note is that many of these components have had their dividends cut since 11/20/2008. Several have been cut significantly. A few were cut, and are now beginning to increase again. One of the lesser-known ramifications of the ongoing credit crisis is that many small and midsize companies have had a difficult time raising capital at reasonable rates. This resulted in a more protective position taken on by management as they’ve sought to preserve cash for operations. This has led to dividend cuts in many cases. Falling share prices in 2008 and 2009 made it easy to do so since they could cut the dividend and still maintain a similar yield for new investors. The argument could certainly made that this is irrelevant since 8% is 8% no matter what the price/distribution levels, but I think it needs to be mentioned to maintain a spirit of objectivity.

Disclosures: Long PWE, PGH, KMP

–flation, Bubbles, and Gold

Published on: 04/09/2010
Comments: No Comments

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words, even if it is only to prove a point that common sense dictates should have been won a long time ago. But common sense seems to be in short supply and not only has the point not been won, it isn’t even being discussed right now. Yes, it is the age-old debate on where price inflation comes from. It is also a foregone conclusion that the US is heading towards a Weimar style hyperinflationary depression. Left to normal circumstances, that is logical conclusion. However, there are several developments that point to the possibility of another deflationary depression, similar to the 1930’s. We’ll get to that later. For starters, let’s put to bed (hopefully) once and for all where price inflation comes from.

Inflation

There are two camps and they argue bitterly. One claims that prices rise because of supply and demand factors (which is partially true) and as a function of a healthy economy, which is patently false. The other side argues correctly that prices rise because the supply of money and/or credit has increased – effectively monetizing demand, which pushes up price levels. Some analysts have argued that there is no inflation because the price of electronics always seems to drop. In the second half of 2008 they argued that there was no inflation because petroleum prices were falling. They made the tragic mistake of substituting a single good for the concept of ‘general price level’.

It is categorically impossible for general price levels to increase in the long run without a commensurate increase in the supply of money and credit. It is important here to make the distinction between short and long run. In the short run, an increase in general prices can be absorbed without a growth in the money supply because it could, in theory, be sustained by devouring savings. But in practice, generally speaking, that isn’t how things work. People tend not to expand spending unless they feel comfortable that money and (particularly) credit are readily available. The housing bubble of the early 21st century is a prime example.

Bubbles

Out of fear of destroying a very easy point, I am going to let the three charts shown below along with a very brief narrative speak for themselves. Then you decide what fueled the housing bubble, and drove up house prices along with general price levels.

30-Year Mortgage Rates

As can easily be seen in the above chart, 30-year mortgage rates dropped steadily from 1981 through the present. Not surprisingly, low rates and readily available credit led to a massive price expansion by monetizing demand.

Housing Price Index

Clearly the expansion in money had to come from somewhere to fuel lower mortgage rates and the expansion in home prices. The chart below, with brackets for the 1990-2007 period shows exactly where it came from. M3 in the US nearly tripled during that 17-year period.

USA M3 (1990-2007)

Deflation??

One thing that should be utterly frightening is the recent freefall of M3 growth. Most folks understand that inflation has been responsible for the vast majority of our economic ‘growth’ over the past century. Inflation fueled the dotcom and real estate bubbles. In short, our economy is set up to run in an inflationary environment. Unfortunately, there is a predictable end to this scheme. At some point, the monetary environment devolves into hyperinflation, then a deflationary collapse. We certainly haven’t experienced hyperinflation yet in the US, and we know the Fed can win a battle with deflation because it can create as much money as is necessary to overwhelm deflationary forces. The current Chairman didn’t get his nickname because he used to fly puddle jumpers. So we’re left to ask: what exactly is going on here?

I think the answer lies in the fact that there are roughly 20 countries right now that are on the verge of bankruptcy and an outright default – the US and UK among them. The US clearly isn’t the only nation in hot water with debt. Greece is a pitifully minute example of what is really a systemic problem for much of the West. In my opinion, we are likely moving towards a coordinated outright default, which will involve the devaluation of currencies followed by central banks capping money growth, which in turn will trigger a second deflationary depression. Most people realize that we now have a fiscal gap of around $100 Trillion just in the US alone. It cannot be filled via conventional means consisting of tax increases and program cuts. I and many others wrote years ago that we needed to address those issues right then or lose our chance. We didn’t do it. There are two choices now: hyperinflation or default. While the collapse in M3 growth does not yet constitute de facto proof that we’re headed for the default scenario, it is certainly something that has to be considered. The good news in that scenario is that cash money would be worth more because it would be in short supply. The bad news is that there won’t be enough of it to maintain our current standard of living – especially in a situation where there is a concurrent devaluation.

Gold

Many will be wondering how I can be an advocate of Gold and Silver in such an environment? The benefits of precious metals are well documented in the case of hyperinflation, but not so much so in the case of deflation. It is a pretty simple and logical conclusion that if there is a shortage of cash, then the presence of cash ‘substitutes’ will be very beneficial. This is especially true in local commerce as in the 1930’s when many areas saw the widespread use of ‘co-ops’ or local trading blocs. The rationale for holding precious metals will be different than if we experience hyperinflation, and their use would be different as well, but I think it is foolish to assume that they’d be a detriment in either case.

Hopefully everyone reading this understands the importance of watching the monetary aggregates for clues as to what is coming down the road. Thanks to nowandfutures.com for providing the continuation of the M3 series depicted in the chart above. Ultimately, our monetary destiny now lies in the hands of global banking interests. We will proceed down the path that best serves them, not our national interest. Congress abdicated its responsibility for our money, as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, when it passed the Federal Reserve Act back in 1913. The best thing this Congress could do with the rest of its time is craft and pass legislation to repeal that Act in its entirety.

This tax day, April 15th, we’ll be releasing the next issue of The Centsible Investor. Our focus this month will be on the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, aka the Plunge Team. We’ll also examine the prospects for $100 oil and analyze a company that makes its money selling electrical generation, process automation, and a vast array of other products to industries ranging from petroleum exploration and pharmaceuticals to automobile manufacturers. Don’t miss it! Click Here for more information.

The Quiet Grab

While all the hubbub here in the US has centered around abominations such as cash 4 clunkers, tax credits for buying homes, and the other machinations directed at returning the US to the blissful year of 2005, other portions of the world have taken notice and have been conducting some activities of their own. They have been locking down ever-growing stockpiles of critical basic materials needed to run their economies. These strategic moves have certainly not been done in secret, but given how we spend our intellectual energies here in America, they might as well have been. Leading the pack has been China, but there have certainly been others.

Venezuela’s $16 Billion Oil Deal

On 9/17/09, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez announced in a brief statement that his country had entered into a $16 billion oil deal with the Chinese to further develop the Orinoco project and ramp up Venezuelan production by 900,000 barrels per day. This agreement is separate from a similar deal inked in October of last year that promised an unspecified amount of Venezuelan production to the Chinese. The important thing to note is that Venezuelan state-owned PDVSA not only committed to ship oil East, but will essentially operate a joint venture with Beijing for the purposes of developing further reserves. At the time, Chavez was optimistic that his country would become China’s top oil supplier.

Of important note in the oil space is the fact that the #3 supplier of oil to the US is Mexico and its production has experienced a steady decline since 2004 and is now in a full state of export destruction. While much ado has been made of the Bakken formation in the western US, some reality must be brought to bear on all the misinformation being disbursed. The US Geological Survey has stated that the formation could contain 4 billion barrels of oil. While getting every drop is impossible, let’s assume for a moment that we can. Even in the throes of the worst economic contraction since the 1930’s the US still burns up about 19 million barrels of oil each day. Using that as a basis, the Bakken contains a whopping 210.53 days of US supply – about 7 months worth. Not really a big deal is it? For comparison, the USGS estimates Alaskan oil reserves including the North Slope to contain 90 billion barrels. Again, let’s assume we can recover every drop of it. The situation here is a bit better and we’ll get about 13 years of supply at current burn rates. Note that doesn’t account for any economic growth, which carries a proportional increase in petroleum consumption under our current transportation, power, and living systems.

Mexican Oil Production

Keep in mind I am being purposely US centric here to frame the issue in simple terms. The recent strategic agreements the Chinese have entered into should take on a whole new significance when looking at the information through the lens of what is actually available to us domestically. Sure, they might have a large find in Brazil. Is it really safe to assume that we’ll command it? The Dollar is already looked upon with contempt thanks to decades of abuse and there is no indication that is about to change any time soon. Unfortunately, the strategic accumulations don’t stop at oil.

China’s Rare Earth Metal Monopoly

While much of the talk in the US recently has shifted to green technology, there is a glaring oversight being made. These new technologies, while solving one complex problem, create another. Much of today’s array of battery technology, fuel cells, wind turbines and solar panels requires an available supply of rare earth metals (REMs) for production. For the past decade and a half, the Chinese have been quietly accumulating large, unrivaled stockpiles as well as a near monopoly in the production of these critical metals. So successful were they that 95% of the lanthanide (periodic table) series metals are produced in China. These metals are used in everything from iPods to hybrid cars. China’s 1987 pledge to become the Saudi Arabia of REMs has come true says Jack Lifton, a REM specialist. The Japanese government sees REMs being the turf for future trade wars, especially since the island country imports almost 100% of its supply from China.

REM Production 2006

As the above chart illustrates, China has a near complete stranglehold on the supply of REMs as a group and a healthy stockpile to boot. Even more importantly, mainland demand is now eating away at exports. And unfortunately, unlike oil, large deposits of REMs are not scattered all over the globe. The only real bit of good news that can be attained from the chart is that supply is still growing. Unfortunately there are no meaningful stockpiles to speak of outside mainland China.

We used to have some domestic sources of these critical metals, but unfortunately, many of those mining operations were scuttled during the price wars of the early 1990s and expensive overhauls would be necessary to get them back in production. Many industry analysts fear that Beijing will be able to affect a serious supply crunch before any meaningful competitive supply can be brought to market. Another shining example of how supply doesn’t automatically appear to quench demand even though the textbooks suggest otherwise. This has resulted in a frantic scramble throughout Southeast Asia as Japanese car and electronic manufacturers try to lock down alternative sources.

Meanwhile the Chinese have sought to solidify their position as the REM capitol of the world. A state-owned investment company recently purchased a 25% stake in Arafura the Australian REM miner. In August, China Minmetals Rare Earth Company made an investment of $310 Million to lock in its dominant position in an already tight industry.

The REM situation has massive implications for the United States and our desire to go green. Without these metals, many green alternatives are not possible given current technology constraints. It also has implications for our consumption of electronic consumer goods, many of which end up in landfills when they no longer work.

Some possible conclusions that can be drawn from these activities don’t paint a good picture for the continuation of activities here in the US as we’re used to. If the countries that supply us with many of our products are locking in stockpiles, it would be rather foolish for us to assume that they’ve done so in order to continue exchanging these dwindling resources for green paper tickets as they have been doing. This becomes even more evident when one considers that much of this stockpiling didn’t exist just a few years ago.

Certainly another contributing factor is that the perceptions of the dollar have grown so pessimistic that many countries are diversifying into hard assets. However, rather than creating a speculative bubble, the strategy being invoked is a longer-term accumulation strategy. They buy the dips and take delivery. This is a testament of the growing disdain of paper assets, particularly currencies. The paradigm shift, which happened not too long in the recent past, is now moving into a higher gear.

Even if this activity ends up being nothing more than a global diversification strategy, which isn’t likely, then the law of unintended consequences kicks in and America will likely face nasty resource shortages as a result sooner than most are willing to admit.

« page 3 of 7 »

Welcome , today is Friday, 05/18/2012