|
Development
Through
Wage-Led Growth
By
Henry C.K. Liu
Part I: Stagnant
Worker Income Leads to Overcapacity
Part II: Gold
Keeps
Rising as Other Commodities Fall
Part III: Labor
Markets de-linked from the Gold Market
Part IV: Central
Banks
and Gold
Part V: Central
Banks
and Gold Liquidity
Part VI: The London
Gold Market
Part VII: Weak
Political Response to Ineffective Financial Regulation
Part VIII: Gold and
Fiat Currencies
This article appeared in AToL
on February 11, 2010.
The continuous upward trend in gold price in 2010 can
be
partially explained by market response to post-crisis economic
conditions
created by reactively loose monetary policy developments and aggressive
market
intervening measures by both the central bank and the Treasury in the US.
This approach was duplicated in varying degrees by many other
governments in
the Group of Twenty (G20).
While both the Obama administration and the supposedly
independent Federal Reserve argue forcefully that quantitative easing
was an
unavoidable emergency measure to prevent a pending total meltdown of
the
financial market, the equally unavoidable consequent post-crisis
stagflation
for up to a decade is reluctantly acknowledged by all.
Gold remains a safe haven asset much sought after by
investors in a market increasingly sensitive to deliberate and
consequential
fiat currency debasement by central banks through quantitative easing
(QE), a
term that describes the process of central bank injecting money into
the market
by buying debt from distressed financial institutions with money the
central
bank creates ex nihilo (out of
nothing), resulting in an expansion of the central bank’s balance
sheet. This
was evidenced by sustained net inflows of funds into all sorts of
gold-based
investment vehicles.
Bernanke Asserts the
Fed Did Not Practice Quantitative Easing
However, in the Stamp Lecture at London School of Economics
on January 13, 2009, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, about three
years into
office, asserted that the Fed’s approach to supporting credit markets
during
the financial crisis was conceptually distinct from quantitative easing
(QE),
the policy approach used by the Bank of Japan from 2001 to 2006. The
Fed’s
approach–which Bernanke suggested could be described as “credit
easing”–resembles quantitative easing in only one respect: Both
approaches
involve an expansion of the liability side of central bank balance
sheet
without adding balancing assets.
Accordingly, Bernanke asserts that in a pure QE regime, the
focus of policy is the quantity of bank reserves, which are liabilities
of the
central bank; the composition of loans and securities on the asset side
of the
central bank’s balance sheet is merely incidental. The implication is
that the
balance sheet can stay unbalanced due the fact that the asset side is a
phantom
number the underlying basis of which is the central bank’s
newly-created money.
Nevertheless, QE is now the term generally used in the financial press
to
describe Fed “credit easing” monetary measures taken during the current
financial crisis. The Fed’s past, current and future stimulus monetary
measures
are popularly referred to as QE1, QE2, QE3 … etc.
Gold and Sovereign
Credit Crisis in Euroland
Sovereign credit woes in Euroland resulting from market
concerns about the public finance crises faced by Eurozone member
states in the
final years of the first decade of the 21st century
negatively
impacted market outlook for the euro and the pound sterling. This
development
has made the already much impaired dollar appear as not the only bad
choice as
a reliable store of value.
Consequently, many investors, affected by Pavlovian
conditioned reflex, sought out gold as an alternative to fiat
currencies. This
herd behavior trend is evidenced by large consumer purchase of coins
and small
bars in retail markets around the globe. Similarly, the gold exchange
traded
funds (ETFs) sector experienced consistently strong inflows of funds
all
through 2010, adding in aggregate over 270 tonnes of gold by Q2 to
assets under
management by ETFs.
Furthermore, net long positions on gold futures contracts,
which are a proxy for the more speculative end of investment demand,
also
returned to high levels close to those seen during Q4 2009.
Conventional wisdom
suggests that longs on gold are essentially shorts on fiat currencies
even
though in reality, the simplistic correlation does not always hold.
On the other hand, jewelry consumption in the advanced
economies was hit by record high gold prices and by an increase in
volatility
toward the end of 2010. Retail gold jewelry prices simply could not
rise as
fast as commodity gold prices without adversely affecting consumer
sales. While
retail gold jewelry merchants saw appreciation in their gold
inventories, they
were actually losing money on every gold ring they sold from their
inventories
if cost to restock at some future time were taken into account, unless
they were
protected by hedges. Yet if retail gold jewelry merchants raised the
retail
price of their gold jewelry, they would suffer sharp drops in sale in a
consumer market already hit by a protracted severe recession and would
suffer
financial loss from not having enough sale volume to cover fixed
overhead cost.
However gold jewelry demand from emerging markets such as India
and the Middle East remained strong in 2010,
relative to
falling consumption levels experienced in 2009 in the advanced
economies.
Moreover, solid economic growth at near double-digits in China,
the biggest emerging market, has been positive for gold consumption
there.
The price of commodity gold reached new highs not only in dollar
terms, but also in term of all other fiat currencies, especially those
in Europe
where government fiscal austerity measures to resolve noxious public
finance
has created a gloomy economic outlook and a negative market view on the
euro.
In early Q2, 2010, many other fiat currencies around the globe not only
fell
against the benchmark dollar but also experienced abnormally higher
levels of
volatility.
Gold Prices in
Different Fiat Currencies
Consequently, since currencies did not depreciate in locked
steps, gold prices in Q2, 2010, rose by 11.5% in dollar terms, 23.1% in
euro
terms, while rising 13.2% in sterling and 14.3% in Swiss francs,
reflecting the
relative strength of the currencies. Both the Canadian and Australian
dollars
did not fare much better as lower commodity prices impacted those two
natural
resource producing economies, with gold having seen a price increase of
16.6%
and 20.9% in those local currency terms respectively. At the other end
of the
spectrum, gold posted its lowest quarterly return of 5.7% in Japan,
where the yen appreciated substantially versus a range of other
currencies,
including the benchmark dollar. In Q1 2010, both the dollar and the
DJIA
out-performed gold, which ended the quarter at $1,115.50 per troy ounce.
Gold Bubble
Gold price performed strongly during Q3 2010, ending the
quarter at US$1,307.00 per troy ounce on the London PM fix, compared
with
US$1,244.00 at the end of Q2 2010 and $1,115.50 at the end of Q1 2010.
This
represented an increase of 5.1% in gold price in US dollar terms
between Q2 and
Q3, in line with its quarterly average gain over the past 5 years
which, in
turn, reinforces the view held by some that gold’s appreciation appears
steady
and measured and does not exhibit the same statistical characteristics
observed
in previous asset bubbles.
Indeed, the upward move in gold price during Q3 2010 was
more modest, rising by $30.01 per troy ounces (2.5%) to $1,226.75, from
$1,196.74 in Q2, due to a pullback in gold price in the early part of
the
quarter. Gold price had fallen to $1,157.00 per troy ounce on the
London PM fix
by July 28, before beginning a steady rise that lasted throughout the
rest of
Q3. Gold price broke through previous highs, breaching the $1,300.00
per troy
ounce level for the first time on September 29, 2010.
This bullish trend continued through the rest of 2010 with
gold price reaching as high as $1,432.50 per ounce during intraday
trading on
December 7. However, every time gold
rose above $1,400, substantial profit-taking prevented it from going
higher.
Gold ended 2010 at $1,414.50 per troy ounce. Goldman
Sachs has told clients to expect gold to top in 2012,
peaking at $1,750 per troy ounce, while Jon Nadler, senior analyst at
Kitco.com, said gold could continue rallying in 2011, but would peak by
the end
of the year.
Price Effects on
Supply of and Demand for Gold
When gold price rises in dollars terms, all other fiat
currencies depreciates against gold in proportion to their exchange
rate to
dollars. On the other hand, while falling gold prices lead to higher
physical
demand for gold in the consumer market, lower gold prices depress
mining output
as marginal mines are shut down. As the gold demand/supply gap widens
against
supply, central banks can help fill the widening supply gap with
easy-rate gold
leasing to keep the market price of gold from rising too fast, or in a
reverse
scenarios of an imbalanced gap against demand, to raise gold leasing
rates to
slow the flow of gold into the market to keep the market price of gold
from
falling
too fast.
The bullion banks borrow gold from central banks in hope of
selling it in the market for cash profit in dollars, by buying back the
gold
later at lower prices to return the borrowed gold to the central banks.
However, while central banks continue to hold legal title to their gold
that
has been leased out to the market, the physical gold is not expected to
come
back to them because of the standard practice of continuous rollover of
gold
leasing contracts.
Marked to Market
Profit of Gold Borrowers
In addition to the already-booked arbitrage on interest rate/gold lease
rate
differential, borrowers of gold were all sitting on huge “marked to
market”
virtual profits as the gold they had borrowed earlier and sold at
higher value
could then be bought back at lower prices at the end of their leases,
at below
$300 per troy ounce in 1985 and 1989, and again at the all-time-low of
$250 per
troy ounce in late 1999.
The quandary of this virtual profit was that if central
banks should demand actual physical delivery of all their leased gold
at the
maturity of their leases, there might not be enough physical gold in
the market
to meet delivery requirements of astronomical notional values. Under
such
conditions, a buying frenzy to acquire physical gold for delivery would
be set
off, driving up gold prices to astronomical ranges to accelerate the
debasement
of fiat currencies against gold.
Central Bank’s Need to
roll over Gold Leases
For all maturing gold leases to be settled with physical
delivery, either future mining output would have to vastly exceed
anticipated
future demand and/or some central banks must sell their gold holdings
to make
more gold available for delivery back to them. To slow down the rise of
the
market price of gold, some central banks may have to sell their gold in
order
to provide enough gold to bullion banks to cover physical delivery back
to
central banks to close out maturing gold leases from central banks. But
the
penalty would be that central banks, as sellers of gold, could put
themselves
in danger of suffering huge capital loss when they need to replenish
their gold
reserve if gold prices continue to rise over time in a secular bull
market for
gold. The advantage gained by central banks from rising gold price does
not
cover the disadvantage of the resultant debasement of their fiat
currencies.
To avoid financial loss from gold leasing, central banks
would have to keep selling gold in massive amounts in order to shift in
gold
option markets from contago (prices
in future higher than spot) to
produce backwardation
(price in future lower than spot price). Further, a massive selling of
gold for
dollars by central banks will shrink the money supply to cause
recessionary
monetary cycles in the economy. It would negate the very intended
stimulus
effects from central bank measures of quantitative easing, without
countervailing
benefits.
Under such backwardation
conditions, leasing out gold for central banks would risk a net
transaction
loss despite lease income because gold price would have declined when
it is time for the
leased gold to be returned to the central banks, and a capital loss
would
show up in
the central banks’ balance sheets. Systemically, backwardation
causes economic recessions because it increases
preference for liquidity on the part of market participants waiting for
still
lower asset prices, and therefore creates a liquidity drought in the
market.
Thus there is an unspoken agreement among central banks to continuingly
rollover their gold leases rather than demanding the return of their
gold
physically as leases mature. The whole process is virtual, based on a
notional
amount of gold since physical gold had not been delivered at the
beginning of
gold leases.
A gold leasing market not constrained by physical delivery
either at the commencement or maturity allows central banks to lease
gold unconstrained
by the physical gold they actually own. Gold leasing then operates as a
derivative sector in which the underlying amount of gold is only a
notional
value. With central banks not required to disclose the amount of gold
they
actually hold, there is strong
incentive for central banks to lease out
more
gold than they actually physically own.
Central Bank
Response to Market Effects of Volatile Gold Prices
For future production from gold mines to exceed future market demand
for gold,
the
price of gold must go up from previous levels and stay up with little
price
volatility for a long time because gold mining is an industry that
cannot be
started or wound down quickly. But rising gold price would bankrupt the
big
bullion banks (who are big borrowers of gold that needs to be returned
later at
higher prices, even virtually) to create a chain of credit defaults in
the gold
market. While central banks cannot go bankrupt from liabilities
denominated in
their own currencies, they face insolvency risk in their gold
transactions unless the loss is denominated in the central bank's own
currency.
Central banks became aware of this danger and started to
sell their gold reserves when gold prices rose between 1985 and 1987,
again
between 1989 and 1996, and since July 1999, to bail out some
too-big-to-fail,
so-called systemically critical market players who had been shorting
gold. The
Bank of England sold part of its gold reserves to keep the price of
gold from
rising too much in order to protect some big bullion banks that were
big
players in the London gold
market.
Other central banks also sold their gold reserves when the price of
gold
started shooting upward during these periods.
It is an institutional mandate of all central banks to correct
imbalances in
the financial markets and in the economy through a balanced monetary
policy of
money supply elasticity to support sustainable economic growth without
inflation. Yet central bank actions in the gold market during the last
three
decades had added to the explosive imbalances in both the financial
markets and
the economy.
In the past, the gold demand/supply gap had widened in favor
of demand when the price of gold was falling, until all the gold
available for
lease and/or sale had been gobbled up by retail consumers,
institutional
investors and hedge funds. At that point would begin the mother of all
short
squeezes, which occur when a short fall in supply and an excess demand
for gold
would force the price of gold upward. When that happened, central banks
had
intervened to keep the price of gold from rising.
The day will come when not even the combined market power of
the solid central banks of the G7 rich member states of the G-20 would
be able
to bail out distressed bullion banks and/or other systemically
important market
participants caught massively short on gold in a gold bubble.
Central Banks Can
Produce Fiat Money, but Not Gold
The Fed has recently demonstrated to the market that in
addition to keeping Fed funds rate at near zero for almost three years
after
the credit crisis began in mid 2007, it could also create money ex nihilo and deliver the new money to
distressed institutions in the market through quantitative easing
(buying
long-term debts) to keep down long-term interest rates, and to try to
push
liquidity on the impaired market to help bring about economic
recovering.\.
However, to bail out any systemically important party
shorting gold, the Fed would need gold, which the Fed cannot create ex nihilo (out of thin air) like it
could with fiat currency, and must buy gold from the market, thus
pushing up
the price of gold further, and making the task of bailing out
too-big-to-fail
distressed parties shorting gold more costly. It is unclear how much of
the
credit crisis that started in July 2007 was exacerbated by gold short
squeezes
since the overwhelming size of the debt securitization market was the
obvious
catalyst. But gold short squeeze was undeniably a contributing factor.
Central Banks Create
Gold Market Imbalances
The evidence that central banks created gold market
imbalances surfaced when these systemic “lenders of last resort” were
forced to
continue to sell gold when gold price was at 20-year lows in 1999, at a
time
when the physical demand in the market was far in excess of the
concurrent
output from mines. The US Federal Reserved, head of the global central
banks
snake, sold gold after the 1997 Asian Financial Crises contagion hit
the New York stock
markets, as part of the massive monetary
easing by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to provide liquidity to the
market.
The artificial increase in aggregate demand in the US
economy was clearly a consequence of the Fed’s loose monetary response
to a
series of foreign and domestic financial crises beginning with the
Asian crisis
in 1997, sustained by the collapse of Long Term Capital Management and
the
Russian default in 1998, and ending with the Brazilian devaluation and
the
anticipated Y2K crisis in 1999. The Fed’s easy money policy led to a
bubble in
aggregate demand that was nearly synchronous with the equity bubble,
and Fed
tightening to deflate the demand bubble contributed to the sharp
reduction in
equity prices and the shallow recession of 2001.
Chinese consumer demand for gold at every Spring Festival
around February is massive. Similarly, Indian consumer demand for gold
also
rises with festive points in the Indian calendar.
Keynes reportedly described Indian gold consumption as reflecting the
“ruinous
love of a barbaric relic.” But gold,
instead of rising in price, fell to a historical low of $250 per troy
ounce in
late 1999, two year after the 1997 Asian Financial Crises, and the year
that
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan injected massive liquidity into the US
financial market to ward off contagion from Asia.
(Please see my July 29, 2010
article: Financial Globalization
and Recurring Financial Crises)
For the 18 years (August 11, 1987 to January 31, 2006) of
his tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan
repeatedly bought
off the collapse of one debt bubble his monetary policy had created,
with a bigger
debt bubble funded by more monetary easing. During that 18-year period,
inflation was under 2% in only two years: 1998 and 2002, both times not
brought
about by Fed policy.
Paul Volcker, who served as Fed chairman from August 1979 to
August 1987, had to raise both the Fed funds rate and the discount to
20% to
fight hyperinflation of 18% in 1980 back down to 3.66% in 1987, the
year
Greenspan took over the Fed just before the October 1987 crash, when
inflation
rose to 4.53%.
Gold Price and
Inflation and Interest Rates
Under Greenspan’s market-accommodative monetary policy, US
inflation rate reached 4.42% in 1988 when gold’s cumulative average
price for
the year was $436.98 per troy ounce.
In 1989, inflation rate rose to 5.36% when gold fell to
$381.40. In 1990, inflation rate rose still higher to 6.29% when gold
price
remained low at $384.51.
The inflation rate was then moderated to 1.55% by the 1997
Asian financial crisis, when Asian exporting economies devalued their
currencies to lower their export prices, and gold price fell still
lower to
$331.02 for the year.
When Greenspan allowed US
inflation rate to rise back to 3.76% by 2000, gold was traded at
$379.11.
In 2001, the Fed funds rate hit a low of 1.75% when
inflation hit 3.76%, and gold fell to $271.04. In 2004, the Fed funds
rate hit
1% when inflation was lower only slightly to 3.52%, and gold was up at
$409.72.
In 2005, the Fed funds rate hit 2.5% when inflation rose to
4.69%, and gold rose higher to $444.74.
The cumulative average price of gold to date was $1,420 for
2011.
Gold hit its all time low of $252.84 on July 20, 1999 and its all-time high to date at
$1,420.00 on December 6, 2010.
From these historical data, one can see that the
price of
gold is mostly driven by technical market forces and not by
fundamentals.
For the 18 years of Greenspan’s tenure at the Fed, US
real interest rate was mostly negative after inflation. Factoring in
the
falling exchange value of the dollar, the Fed was in effect paying US
transnational corporate borrowers to invest in non-dollar markets, and
paying
US financial institutions to profit from dollar carry trade, i.e.,
borrowing
dollars at negative rates to speculate in assets denominated in other
currencies with high yields.
In recent years, the US
has been allowing the dollar to fall in exchange value to moderate the
adverse
effect of high indebtedness on the economy and using depressed wages,
both
domestic and foreign, to moderate US
inflationary pressure. This trend went on for almost three decades, but
it is
not sustainable because other governments responded by intervening in
the
foreign exchange market to keep their own currencies from appreciating
against
the dollar to remain competitive in global trade. The net result will
be a
moderating of drastic changes in the exchange rate regime but not a
halt of
dollar depreciation.
Global Devaluation of
Fiat Currencies Agianst Gold
What has happened is a global devaluation of all fiat
currencies against gold, with the dollar as the lead sinking anchor in
terms of
purchasing power. The sharp rise of prices for assets and commodities
around
the world has been caused by the sinking of the purchasing power of all
currencies. This is a trend that will end eventually in hyperinflation
while
the exchange rate regime remains operational, particularly if central
banks
continue to follow a coordinated policy of holding up inflated asset
and
commodities prices globally with loose monetary policies, i.e.,
releasing more
liquidity every time markets face imminent corrections.
Keynesian View on
Gold
Keynesian economics viewed demand for gold beyond personal
consumption as a sign of socio-economic backwardness that creates an
inverse
relationship of market demand for gold to economic progress. Gold as
money
distorts the very economic function of modern money in a market economy
because
a rise in market preference for gold is in essence a pathological
distrust in
the fiat money monetary system of modern time.
Stability of Gold
While gold is fungible and indestructible, its real
stability as a monetary metal lays in the fact that it cannot be
created by
government fiat. This fact denies gold the elasticity required for a
responsive
monetary system of the modern financial economy.
However, gold leasing by central banks has provided a way
for governments to create a synthetic supply of gold to give this
monetary
metal a measure of elasticity, albeit a cumbersome one.
Gold as Fiat Currency
Substitute
Thus gold as currency robs government of one of its most
important authority and function: the provision of a properly elastic
monetary
system to serve economic growth and security. Yet with an adequately
elastic
and responsive money supply, the gold market turns gold into a fiat
currency
substitute by using gold synthetically, detached from actual inventory,
as a
notional value in derivative structured finance. The need for gold as a
monetary substitute for fiat currency increases only with the decline
in market
confidence in fiat currency issued by government. Yet gold derivatives
undermine the safe haven characteristics of gold itself.
Further, gold possesses only limited palliative power
against loss of market confidence in a diseased fiat currency. On the
contrary,
it makes a diseased fiat currency tolerable by providing market
participants
with an economically inert or even counterproductive hedge against fiat
currency debasement.
Gold and Wealth
Gold quantitatively increases wealth, but only if the
increased quantity does not affect its rarity. That is what
distinguishes gold
from fiat currency. Quantitative increases in fiat currency supply,
unlike
gold, do not increase wealth, only the illusion of wealth through price
inflation. As the price of gold rises, wealth has not been increased by
it,
only the diseased fiat currency has declined further in real value.
The discovery of gold in the New World
created gold inflation in Europe in the 17th
and 19th centuries that transformed the European
socioeconomic
structure from feudal agricultural to bourgeois financial. Gold hedges
weaken
systemic incentive to restore impaired monetary health by
re-stabilizing fiat
currency. However, a mild inflation caused by a controlled increase in
the
supply of fiat currency can be economically stimulus to increase wealth
by
expanding the economy. Monetarists think a steady 3% annual expansion
of the
money supply is optimally constructive economically.
But a quantitative increase in gold creates wealth only if
the demand for gold remains undiluted. Yet, ceteris
paribus, a quantitative increase in gold weakens demand for gold
because
the appeal of gold is based on its rarity. Therein lays the inherent
limit of
gold as a store of value.
The Decades of
Bearish Gold Market
Many traders in the early 2000s were convinced, wrongly, that gold had
lost its
function as a reserve asset, as sentiment among gold investors turned
bearish.
They thought that the demand for gold both as a consumer commodity and
as a
store of value was dwindling in the brave new market of synthetic
security.
The two decades between 1982 and 2002 were bear markets for
gold, bottoming at $250 per troy ounce in 1999, despite the loose money
monetary policy of the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan. Gold started to climb steadily after 2000 to
hit the all time high of $1,420.00 on December 6, 2010, mostly to reflect blatant
currency debasement policies
adopted by central banks to keep a debt-infested financial system from
total
collapse. Inflation destroys wealth by deflating the value of
outstanding debt.
Inflation does not make the debtor richer, only the creditor poorer.
February 7, 2010
Next: International Gold Agreements - Historical
Political Context
|
|
|
|