AUDUSD’s upward movement extended to 0.8979

AUDUSD’s upward movement from 0.8660 extended to as high as 0.8979. Further rise to test 0.9085 resistance could be expected, a break above this level will signal completion of the longer term downtrend from 0.9756 (Oct 23, 2013 high), then the following upward movement could bring price to 0.9600 area. On the downside, as long as 0.9085 resistance holds, the price action from 0.8820 (Dec 18, 2013 low) would possibly be consolidation of the downtrend from 0.8756, one more fall to 0.8500 area is still possible after consolidation.

audusd

Daily Forex Forecast

Why You Need A Binary Options Demo Account

Binary Options Demo AccountBinary options over the past couple of years have seen an impressive increase in popularity. With this increase has also come a dramatic increase in the number of binary option brokers as well. Many of these brokers offer a very simple web-based platform to trade with. The visitor to the site will be able to see streaming prices and usually that’s just about it.  One of the problems is when they decide that they want to trade a demo of the account the broker prompts them to deposit funds.

So in order to try out the brokers system the person must actually deposit real money and cannot try out the system in a demo environment.

It seems a little odd that a broker would force you to deposit money to try out a trading system or web site. Forex brokers offer a variety of free demo accounts for trading with full capabilities. There seems to be little reason that a binary options broker wouldn’t be able to allow the same functionality. It seems only reasonable that the binary options broker offers all of their platforms available to test for their demo users.

There are a select few brokers that do offer you the ability to trade a fully functional binary options demo account. This allows the user to really test drive the demo account and to see if this is really what they want. This also enables the demo user to test out any particular strategy that they have which they would not be able to do without risking real funds.

Having the ability to test a fully functional binary options double account is one great way to enter into the world of binary options trading.

To learn more please visit www.clmforex.com

 

Disclaimer: Trading of foreign exchange contracts, contracts for difference, derivatives and other investment products which are leveraged, can carry a high level of risk. These products may not be suitable for all investors. It is possible to lose more than your initial investment. All funds committed should be risk capital. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. A Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) is available from the company website  Please read and consider the PDS before making any decision to trade Core Liquidity Markets’ products. The risks must be understood prior to trading. Core Liquidity Markets refers to Core Liquidity Markets Pty Ltd. Core Liquidity Markets is an Australian company which is registered with ASIC, ACN 164 994 049. Core Liquidity Markets is an authorized representative of Direct FX Trading Pty Ltd (AFSL) Number 305539, which is the authorizing Licensee and Principal

 

 

 

 

‘Safe’ Stocks Not So Safe

By MoneyMorning.com.au

Have we just seen more proof that the era of central bank manipulation is nearing an end?

After nearly six years of seemingly non-stop meddling, it’s almost impossible to believe that could be true.

But what if it is?

We mentioned yesterday that things may have changed…that perhaps no more will ‘bad news be good news’.

Well, the evidence mounts…

Yesterday Bloomberg News reported:

‘Traders who placed record bets against the Australian dollar are ruing their timing, after the central bank signalled two years of interest-rate cuts are at an end and stepped back from efforts to talk down the currency.’

It’s probably a bit of a stretch to say central banks have completely stopped manipulating the market. Arguably the act of openly saying they won’t cut rates is itself manipulating the market.

Proof of that was in the reaction of the foreign exchange market. After sinking for more than three months, from 97.5 US cents to 87 US cents, the Aussie dollar gained more than two cents against the US dollar.

Not that the news did much for Aussie stocks. They fell for another day.

Better than Blue Chip Stocks

There’s no doubt it has been a bad time for stocks since the start of the year. The S&P/ASX 200 index is now down 5.3%.

But what may surprise you is how other areas of the market have performed in recent weeks.

Normally when the market dips you’ll see blue chip stocks hold up better relative to smaller stocks.

That’s because investors migrate towards supposedly ‘safer’ stocks. That doesn’t mean they’re completely safe. It just means they tend to fall less than smaller stocks.

But in recent weeks a funny thing has happened.

Supposedly safe stocks — as measured by the S&P/ASX 200 — have fallen 5.3%, and yet, some of the market’s riskiest stocks — as measured by the S&P/ASX Emerging Companies index have fallen a paltry 2.2%.

You can see the proof of that on the following chart. The blue line represents the blue chip stocks, and the yellow line represents the emerging companies stocks (small-caps):

Source: Google Finance

But what’s just as interesting is the red line on the chart.

The red line has fallen 5.2% since the start of the year. That’s better than the performance of blue-chips.

What index does the red line represent? Mining stocks.

Interest Rate Cuts No More

We wrote a few weeks ago that we don’t like using relative performance when talking about returns. In our view a loss is a loss. The fact that one loss may be lower than another loss doesn’t impress us as an investor, and it shouldn’t impress you either.

If you’re paying for financial advice, you want that advisor to make you money, not lose you less money than someone else.

But when it comes to analysing the performance of one index against another, it’s perfectly fine to weigh up the relative returns.

In this instance, it’s mind-blowing that not only are small-cap stocks doing better than blue chip stocks, but mining stocks (the most hated stocks on the market) are doing better than blue chip stocks too.

So, why is that?

That’s simple. A big reason for the blue chip stock rally was the fact that interest rates were heading down. With lower interest rates, investors had to ditch savings accounts and plunge into the stock market to get a higher yield.

But if the Reserve Bank of Australia says it won’t cut interest rates any further, there’s a chance that you could see some interest rates rise — although not by much.

Even so, just a slightly higher yield on deposit rates could be enough to make dividend yields less attractive to investors. Unless companies can increase their dividend payments.

That’s by no means certain. Although based on our research there is still a fair amount of room for Aussie stocks to raise their payout ratios.

Dividend Rally Ends, Growth Rally Begins

The rush from dividend stocks into cash hasn’t really affected small-cap stocks. That’s because most small-cap stocks don’t pay a dividend.

So while investors have rushed to sell dividend stocks, most of the small-cap market has been left untouched.

Investors left small-cap stocks for dead in 2012 and 2013 as they searched for yield. So these stocks are still trading at bargain basement prices.

Since the end of 2010 the blue chip index is up 5.6%. Compare that to the mining index, which is down 36.7% and the emerging companies index, which is down 44.9%.

Now, that doesn’t automatically mean the low stocks will go up and the high stocks will fall. But it does suggest that if interest rates don’t fall further, investors will start looking at value growth plays.

In other words, stocks that haven’t yet gone up. That spells good news for growth stocks of all sizes — large-cap, mid-cap and small-cap. And it spells especially good news for one bunch of hated stocks; mining stocks.

It’s still too early to claim that central banks have left the market. But if you can trust them to leave interest rates where they are for the rest of the year, it could be a great time to back Aussie growth stocks for top returns in 2014.

Cheers,
Kris

Join Money Morning on Google+


By MoneyMorning.com.au

Why I’m Glad Everyone Ignored My Story about Urnaium

By MoneyMorning.com.au

Usually when you write an article, you hope for lots of comments. Comments are a good sign. You’ve struck a nerve. People feel compelled to have their say.

Comments lead to discussion, which brings in more readers. You can say to your boss: ‘Look how many people are reading my article,’ and ask for a pay rise.

Tweets are good too. Facebook ‘likes’, Google+ recommendations, shares — any kind of social media approbation you can think of.

So when an article gets ignored or overlooked, you skulk back to your bunker and feel rather bad about things.

Except in this instance…

Writers dream of the glory that is bestowed upon the high-profile social commentator. They want the column in the broadsheet that gets them a thousand comments for every article. They want to be invited onto the BBC to hold court about this or that issue, and for that interview to then go viral. They want to be paid fortunes for uttering their opinions.

But these great intellectuals don’t put their money where their mouth is. Yours truly, however, does.

Back in early December, I posted this article on uranium. I suggested that a ‘stealth bull market’ might be underway.

Barely a uranium company attended Mines and Money (one of the world’s biggest mining conferences) last year, for example. Investor interest was close to zero. Hardly any mines can make money at current prices, funding has disappeared and that means there’s going to end up being a shortfall in supply. Because nobody gives a fig about uranium any more.

Do you know what? Nobody gave a fig about my article either. Nil comments. Not one. The big zero. Two likes on Facebook — one of them from me. Four tweets — one from me, one from my mum, one from MoneyWeek and one random.

The proud, egotistical Dominic Frisby harrumphed. I should have written something about gold or house prices — or, better still, both. (I believe one ‘house prices measured in gold’ article still holds MoneyWeek’s ‘most commented’ record.)

But the proud, egotistical Dominic Frisby is a rotten investor. One of the first rules of investing is that ego and pride should both be left at the door, along with opinions, prejudices, biases and bigotries. Humility is everything. And if you’re not humble, it won’t be long before Mr Market teaches you to be.

The canny Dominic Frisby, who, believe it or not, does appear on occasion, had a rather different interpretation. Zero interest is an extremely positive sign.

As a buyer, there’s nobody to compete with for stock. You can get it cheap. You can buy it quietly. You can take your time. There are plenty of people still to enter the market and then shout ‘buy uranium!’ once they’ve taken a position.

Uranium has bottomed out

I’m not saying uranium is going to shoot up from here. Memories of the 2006 bubble still linger. Bubbles take many years to unwind. But I am saying that the low is in — at least in my opinion.

The uranium price itself (or rather the uranium oxide price) is mired at around $35 a pound. After two years of post-Fukushima declines from a high of about $70/lb, it has been flat at $35/lb since July.

It’s hard to see how the price can fall much lower from here. Most deposits are unviable at $35/lb. Broadly speaking, $50/lb is the cut-off — so development of new mines has all but stalled. Exploration has all but dried up.

Current uranium production stands at about 130 million pounds a year, while usage stands at around 180 million. The shortfall is made up from old Russian military stockpiles. How long will these last? Your guess is as good as mine.

But electricity consumption is on the increase worldwide and more reactors are being built, so demand will at least remain steady, if not grow.

Below, is a chart of Uranium Participation Corp, which tracks the uranium price. You can see the falls in 2011, the long grind lower and then that ‘triple bottom’ — a low in late 2012, re-tested successfully in March 2013 and again last October.

Anything can go wrong in mining, and it usually does, particularly if the metal in question is uranium. So investors should make sure they have a clear exit strategy.

Source: StockCharts.com

What do you think?

Dominic Frisby
Contributing Editor, Money Morning

Ed note: The above story was originally published here in MoneyWeek.

Join Money Morning on Google+


By MoneyMorning.com.au

GOLD: Turns Off Ahead Of The 1,279.08 Level. Faces Consolidation Risk

GOLD: With attempts of resuming its short term uptrend failing on Wednesday for a marginal higher close, consolidation above its broken falling trendline may continue. If however GOLD retakes the 1,279.08 level, its Jan 27 2014 high to create scope for more upside the 1,300.00 level, its big psycho level will be targeted. A clearance of here if seen will turn focus to the 1,350.00 level. Further out, resistance stands at the 1,400.00 level, its psycho level. Conversely, the risk to this analysis will be a return to the downside towards the 1,231.48 level. Further down, support resides at the 1,218.35 level, representing its Jan 08’2014 low. This level must hold to prevent the commodity from returning to the 1,182.33 level, its Dec 31’2013 low. However, if that level is violated it will turn attention to the 1,150.00 level followed by the 1,100.00 level. All in all, GOLD remains biased to the downside medium term.

Article by www.fxtechstrategy.com

 

 

 

 

Legendary Geologist Brent Cook Shares His Rules for Weeding Out Flaky Companies

Source: JT Long of The Gold Report  (2/5/14)

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/legendary-geologist-brent-cook-shares-his-rules-for-weeding-out-flaky-companies

If now is the time to accumulate deeply discounted companies with strong fundamentals in advance of a hot junior market in 2015, how can an investor tell if a company is a black hole or a shining star? Exploration Insights Publisher Brent Cook shines a light on the all-important due diligence process in this interview with The Gold Report and gives seven examples of companies that pass his litmus test.

The Gold Report: You recently wrote a piece called “A Light at the End of the Tunnel” that outlined the rules of thumb for junior mining speculators and concluded that the fundamentals are pointing to an improving investment climate for junior miners. Why are you so optimistic when people like Harry Dent are predicting deflation and recession?

Brent Cook: I look at the fundamentals behind the mining and exploration industry. We have seen a significant decline in legitimate economic mineral discoveries. At the same time we’ve seen a continuing increase in copper, silver and gold mine production. Those two things are diametrically opposed. With the decline in metal prices, particularly gold, the mining and exploration companies are not putting money into finding the next deposit. That is why although I don’t particularly think this year is going to be a great year for the junior mining sector in general, I think it’s setting up what will be some great returns in 2015 and beyond.

TGR: Is this a classic supply and demand adjustment? If companies are spending less in exploration and development now, is there going to be a lack of supply later?

BC: There is going to be a dearth of new exploration discoveries coming on to replace the 85 million ounces (85 Moz) of gold and 18 million tons of copper we are producing each year.

TGR: What impact does high grading have on future production?

BC: All-in sustaining cash costs for gold mines are between $1,200/ounce ($1,200/oz) and $1,500/oz. At current gold prices, producers, on the whole, are not making much money and are therefore being forced to cherry pick the high-grade portions of their deposits, leaving behind the lower-grade material. When they do that, a lot of the resource previously classified as reserves—the lower-grade material—becomes uneconomic.

By high grading, companies are sterilizing what used to be classified as ore and turning it to waste. The difference between ore and waste is simple: ore makes money, waste loses money. In this coming year, a number of companies are going to announce a decline in their reserve base because of high grading and lowered metal price assumptions.

TGR: What is the impact of mining the best material at a time when it is selling at low prices?

BC: Companies usually try to maximize their profits by mining the better portions of an ore body when prices are high. With lower prices, many companies will be forced to produce from the better part of their deposits just to stay in business; they don’t have a choice. They have to high grade these deposits to keep the door open. The end result is that quality reserves are being depleted faster than they can replace them.

TGR: You called the inevitable point where there isn’t enough supply based on a lack of investment in exploration and development a “pinch point.” When is this pinch point going to come?

BC: I hope it will be soon because that is the point when the price of gold, and more important, gold deposits, will go up, but I suspect we won’t see anything until next year. We really don’t know when the companies are going to wake up. By the end of last year, most mining companies were focusing on proving to the investment community that they can actually make money mining. They may temporarily pull it off, but it’s going to put them in a really tough situation one or two years down the road when they’ve got no new ore bodies to replace what they’ve pulled out of the ground.

TGR: You talked in your article about some of the ways that investors who are looking to find some bargains now can tell which companies could really be successful when the market turns. The first thing you suggested was doing a desktop review to screen as many as half of the companies out of contention for investment. What are some of the red flags you look for when you are reading a company website?

BC: We know the odds of exploration success are extremely low. On average 1 in 1,000 exploration projects turns into an economic deposit. What I spend most of my time doing here at Exploration Insightsis screening technical reports for fatal flaws. Some less technical signs are more obvious than others.

 

  • If a company covers its website with pictures of American flags, stars and stripes and gold bars, that is a warning sign that the company might be flaky. A company website should include drill hole maps, cross-sections and complete assays. If all you are getting are drill highlights, avoid it. Either the company is incompetent or hiding something.

  • Companies only listed on the OTC might be ones to avoid.

  • Companies that focus on their proprietary techniques for mining or processing minerals could be compensating for a lack of resource. In the past some people claiming they could pull otherwise undetectable gold out of volcanic cinder cones were flat out scamming.

  • If the economics of the deposit relies on some oddball mineral credits like cadmium, there may be a problem with the underlying profitability of the deposit.

  • If a project has had its name changed many times or a company has jumped from one hot sector to the next, that is generally a bad sign.

TGR: Another screening tool you mention is management ownership. We interviewed Ted Dixon of INK Research about this last year. How important is it to know what company employees are buying and selling?

 

BC: If a person running a company is invested, then it sets up a scenario where if he or she makes money, the investor makes money through share price appreciation. It is also important to know what price the employee actually paid for the shares. A lot of these insiders can buy in at $0.01 or $0.05/share and it looks as if they own a lot, but in fact their cost basis is almost zero. On the other hand, not everyone can own 5% or 10% of a company. A lot of these people just don’t have the financial ability to buy in big at the start. Look at ownership relative to net worth, but having a shared stake with management is critical.

 

TGR: What if management is selling the stock?

 

BC: Generally that’s not a good sign, but there are reasons people have to sell stock. A number of these company presidents don’t make a lot of salary. They may need to buy a house or send a child to school. It is important to understand why someone is selling.

 

TGR: A lot of stock is bought based on drill reports. Press releases can be confusing. What are the tricks some companies use to make drill results look better than they really are and how do you know what they are really saying?

 

BC: One tool that I’ve developed along with Corebox is called the Drill Interval Calculator. Often a few narrow high-grade intervals are smeared across low-grade material to give the impression of a large homogenous mineralization over what is essentially barren rock waste. The Drill Interval Calculator will make that spin apparent.

 

It is also important to research historic drilling of other holes in the general area. Some companies will re-drill or twin a previous hole that had great results. If the previous company drilled all these holes and walked away because the rest of the holes were no good, then what value is it for the new company to re-drill the one good hole and publish a press release of the fantastic result? I want to see what else has been drilled to get a sense of the size and style of mineralization. Basically, we need to know the history of the prospect: what was drilled, results, interpretations and why the current program is different from previous exploration campaigns.

 

TGR: A lot of investors go on site tours that to the untrained eye look like sage brush safaris. You are a geologist. What do you look for on a site tour?

 

BC: This is really critical. People have to come away from a site tour with an understanding of whether the type of geologic system the company is reporting fits the geology. That determines what size of deposit will be required to make money. That includes estimating capital costs for infrastructure and processing.

 

When I visit a property, it’s all about turning the rocks into money. To do that you need to mentally build a mine from day one. Assess the likely operating expenses, capital expenditure (capex) costs based on the location, strip ratio, metallurgy and then, how much it will cost the company to address those issues. Then the investor can formulate an investment thesis. That is what sets the successful speculator in this industry apart from the crowd. Even after all this research, 9 times out of 10, subsequent drilling doesn’t confirm the thesis and the investor should sell. That’s key. Once it’s not working, sell. Hope hasn’t proven to be a very good investment thesis for me.

 

TGR: Let’s talk about some examples of companies that passed these screens.

 

BC: From almost the first drill hole, we have been invested in Reservoir Minerals Inc. (RMC:TSX.V), which made a major discovery in a joint venture with Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (FCX:NYSE) in the Timok project in Serbia. Before it drilled the property we knew conceptually what success looked like, in part because there’s another deposit just like it up the road. It’s a copper-gold porphyry system with a high sulphidation component.

 

The first drill hole hit a long interval of about 1.23% copper equivalent and the geology confirmed our conceptual idea that Reservoir is into a major porphyry copper deposit. Subsequent drilling continued to confirm our thesis; it showed us that there is size and grade. Now we’ve got a $5 or $6 stock and when we jumped in it was $0.60/share. We’ve stayed there because subsequent drilling continued to confirm our thesis that it is onto a major mineral deposit that will make money. Freeport has the option of earning 75% of the project by producing a bankable feasibility statement. Until that happens, it doesn’t cost Reservoir a dime as Freeport assesses the economics of the deposit. At some point it is possible Freeport will decide it makes more sense to buy Reservoir out.

 

Another one that passes the test is Fission Uranium Corp. (FCU:TSX.V). I held back when the first drill hole showed that the company had hit uranium mineralization in the Athabasca Basin because I was concerned that most of it could have been eroded. Subsequent drilling down trend showed a lot of mineralization left in the ground, so we bought in. It has performed extremely well also. Fission is onto a major discovery. All subsequent drilling confirms that this thing is getting bigger and it has the grade and mining characteristics to make money. Fission has 90 drill holes planned this winter, so there’s certainly a chance for even more discoveries this year.

 

TGR: Both of those companies are unique in that their stock prices actually went up last year. How do you know if a company still has upside left?

 

BC: That goes back to the first day on the ground, looking at the rock and building a conceptual economic mineral deposit in your head. You have to have a sense of what this thing is going to be worth on a net present value (NPV) calculation. I could give you the names of 20 companies whose stocks went up and collapsed. They collapsed because subsequent drilling either limited the deposit or disproved the concept. We made money on some of those because we got out in time. Investors can make money on things that ultimately fail, but they need to have that model built in the back of their minds that tells them whether the geology is working and whether the economics are working.

 

TGR: What are some other companies that pass the smell test?

 

BC: Much safer and more advanced is True Gold Mining Inc. (TGM:TSX.V), which has a large deposit in Burkina Faso called Karma. The company has focused on the superficial part of this deposit, the oxidized part. It has almost 1 Moz gold, a feasibility study that shows some very good numbers, an internal rate of return (IRR) of 40+%, an after-tax NPV of $180 million ($180M) and a market cap of about $96M. What I like about it is that the jurisdiction is good. The capex is relatively low. The processing costs are low and it’s a very simple operation. It will make good money and has a lot of room to grow. True Gold may not be a tenbagger, but I think it has 20% to 50% upside and the downside is limited to the gold price.

 

TGR: The stock jumped up after the feasibility study came out in December. What did investors like about the study?

 

BC: A lot of the larger institutional investors want to see hard data from a third party about the deposit’s worth. An IRR of 44% after tax is a very good return on investment. That’s a stock that makes money that they want to own.

 

TGR: What about some other names?

 

BC: One that’s not as advanced as True Gold is Midas Gold Corp. (MAX:TSX). The company has a very large deposit in central Idaho. I know the area well; I used to run around there as a kid. The Yellow Pine District is an old mining area that was left with environmental issues from previous work. Midas has drilled out about 7 Moz at about 1.6 grams per ton gold. It’s got some byproduct, antimony as well. The preliminary economic assessment came up with an after-tax NPV of 5% of about $1 billion using $1,200/oz gold. The company’s market cap right now is $124M. I think there’s a lot of concern associated with permitting, but ultimately I think it is possible. It’s going to be three to four years before it actually gets approved and there is a lot of work to do up until then.

The company is putting together a new resource estimate that will go into a new economic study. I think it is going to decrease the number of ounces that go into the study, but focus on the higher-grade portion of these deposits, which will probably net the same, but it’s going to be a better deposit at a bit lower capex. I like this one because it’s trading at almost a 90% discount to what the economic study indicates it is worth. Now we’ve got a long way to get from A to B, but it is a nice deposit and it is rare to find something that large in a relatively stable jurisdiction.

 

TGR: What about a couple of others?

 

BC: I like prospect generators because the business model is that they develop the ideas and then bring in somebody else to spend the big money testing those concepts. Given that statistically at least 90% of these projects are going to fail, it makes a lot of sense to bring in someone else to spend the exploration dollars and fail rather than the junior company spending the money. My piece of the company—which is really an intellectual capital company, people generating ideas—is not diluted. One that I think is worth looking at is Mirasol Resources Ltd. (MRZ:TSX.V). The company is active in Chile and Argentina and has been successful in the past. It has a good cash and equity position of around $35M, and at CA$1.20 is trading for not much above that.

 

Another one I like is Lara Exploration Ltd. (LRA:TSX.V). The company has a number of projects going on in Brazil, Peru and Colombia. It is filled with smart people doing smart work with other people’s money.

 

Another one would be Riverside Resources Inc. (RRI:TSX); which is active in British Columbia and Mexico. The company has a number of projects being operated by partners and Riverside is just generating the ideas. I think those are smart ideas.

 

That’s a smart way to get into this sector, a very high-risk sector, with relatively lower risk.

 

TGR: You are a geologist. You look a lot at the rocks and you look at the business of whether the project can be brought to completion successfully. Do you spend a lot of time considering the politics? You mentioned a number of companies in South America and Riverside is in Mexico, which recently passed a new royalty tax. How much of an impact on success is the jurisdiction that a company is operating in?

 

BC: The jurisdiction is critical. There’s no point finding a deposit in a place that the company is never going to get to mine. That’s just a waste of money. There are a number of places I wouldn’t go. Even within Colombia there are certain areas that an investor doesn’t want to be for social, environmental or political reasons. Once an investor assumes that a country is okay to develop a deposit, then he or she must look at the exact locality. What’s going on there? Is a company drilling out a deposit sitting above a historic church and graveyard? Well, that isn’t going to work no matter where it is. That is what a desktop review screens out.

 

TGR: Are you still comfortable with Mexico in general?

 

BC: I think Mexico is still a good place to be exploring. The government has raised the hurdle as to what makes money, but the tax regime there is still competitive on a global basis, just not as good as it used to be.

 

TGR: We have covered a lot of ground. Any final words of wisdom for our readers who are looking for that light at the end of the tunnel, but don’t want to get burned on the way?

 

BC: Investors have got to do due diligence. Follow the rules of thumb. This is going to be a prime year to accumulate a few companies with deposits that work or exploration companies with competent management and the money to survive. Those are the two things I’m going to be buying this year. This is where investors make money. The Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) is down more than 70% over the past two years. A lot of the stuff that’s down should be down and will go lower, but there are some companies that have been taken down that are worth buying. I think this is a time to accumulate in anticipation of 2015 and 2016 being much better.

 

TGR: Thanks, Brent, for your insights.

 

Brent Cook brings more than 30 years of experience to his role as a geologist, consultant and investment adviser. His knowledge spans all areas of the mining business, from the conceptual stage through detailed technical and financial modeling related to mine development and production. Cook’s weekly Exploration Insights newsletter focuses on early discovery, high-reward opportunities, primarily among junior mining and exploration companies.

 

Want to read more exclusive Gold Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Exclusive Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:
1) JT Long conducted this interview for The Gold Report and provides services to The Gold Report as an employee. She or her family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Gold Report and/or The Energy Report: True Gold Mining Inc. and Fission Uranium Corp. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.
3) Brent Cook: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: Reservoir Minerals Inc., Midas Gold Corp., True Gold Mining Inc., Lara Exploration Ltd., Riverside Resources Inc., Mirasol Resources Ltd. and Fission Uranium Corp. I personally am or my family is paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.
4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.
5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer.
6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.

 

Streetwise – The Gold Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

 

Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

 

Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

 

Participating companies provide the logos used in The Gold Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

 

101 Second St., Suite 110
Petaluma, CA 94952

Tel.: (707) 981-8999
Fax: (707) 981-8998
Email: [email protected]

 

 

 

Outside the Box: Challenging the Consensus

By John Mauldin – Outside the Box: Challenging the Consensus

One of the most universal consensus calls in the markets today is that interest rates are destined to rise. Thirteen out of 13 major investment banks all think that interest rates for global fixed-income will rise this year. I get nervous when everybody is on the same side of the boat. And so does my good friend and business partner Niels Jensen of Absolute Return Partners in London. This week’s Outside the Box is another of his thoughtful essays, giving us five reasons why interest rates may in fact go down this year. That is not to say that we don’t both agree that rates have to go back up eventually, but to us the timing is not so obvious as it is to the major investment banks. Rather than tip his thunder, I’ll let Niels advocate for his position. (And you can see more of his consistently excellent work at www.arpinvestments.com.)

It’s been a busy week here in Dallas, but then aren’t they all lately? But it’s good to be busy at home for the next few weeks. Lots of material to be written and edited, plans to be made, and trips to be scheduled, of course. My current sedentary lifestyle will soon revert to its normal peripatetic frenzy, but it’s good to give the body a bit of rest. Enjoy your week.

Your getting ready for some left-over Super Bowl chili analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box
[email protected]

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends…

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.


Challenging the Consensus

“The noble title of ‘dissident’ must be earned rather than claimed; it connotes sacrifice and risk rather than mere disagreement.”

Christopher Hitchens, Polemicist

Herd mentality is one of the strongest and most powerful human instincts. Humans take great comfort from walking the same path as others have walked before them, and nowhere is this more evident than in the field of investments. Most investors are simply incapable of disregarding the consensus when making investment decisions, if for no other reason than because ‘being out there on your own’ is associated with considerable career risk (I wrote about this back in October 2012 – see here).

I consider myself a contrarian investor. Not a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian but a contrarian nevertheless. My inclination to go against the prevailing view is based on one very simple piece of knowledge acquired through 30 years of trial and error. When an investor states that he is bullish, he is more often than not close to being fully invested, hence he has used most, if not all, of his dry powder. Obviously, the more people who find themselves in this situation, the less purchasing power there is on an aggregate basis. At this point the market is at or near its peak. Precisely the opposite is the case when most investors are bearish. They have sold most if not all of their holdings, at which point the market is more likely to go up than down.

This way of thinking is frequently challenged by people (often academics) who argue that it cannot be that way, because investing is a zero sum game. We cannot all sell out at the same time, as someone has to own those bonds, or so the argument goes. Whilst theoretically correct, this view fails to take into account the distinction between core and marginal investors. Whilst marginal investors (e.g. private investors, hedge funds) can, and do, move freely between asset classes, core investors (e.g. pension funds, sovereign wealth funds) are at least partially restricted in their movements. Such limitations ensure that, in practice, investing is not a zero sum game.

Now, when I look at financial markets going into 2014, I cannot recall ever having come across a more one-sided view than the one which prevails. The consensus view on bonds is overwhelmingly bearish while pretty much everyone is bullish on equities – or at least they were until EM equities began to fall out of bed. Barry Ritholtz (The Big Picture blog) has done a great job of assembling, and presenting, the sell-side view in a simple to understand format (chart 1).


Source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/01/surprising-consensus-on-asset/

Some may argue that the sell-side is always bullish on equities, and while that is not a million miles away from the truth, this year is still uniquely one-sided. And it is certainly not the case that the sell-side is always uniformly negative on the outlook for interest rates. As far as the bond market is concerned, the 2014 consensus is a major outlier, and that is precisely what has piqued my interest. It is much more difficult to obtain reliable information on the buy-side consensus. Suffice to say that none of the information I have at hand has given me any reason to speculate that the buy-side view differs materially from that of the sell-side. See, for example, the recently updated policy portfolio for the Harvard University Endowment here.

Five reasons you may want to change your bearish view

In the December 2013 Absolute Return Letter (‘Squeaky Bum Time’) I discussed our 2014 expectations for equities – see here. This month I will focus on the outlook for interest rates and challenge the prevailing wisdom – i.e. that rates are destined to rise as 2014 progresses. I am not suggesting that the consensus view will definitely prove wrong in 2014; however, I can think of at least five plausible reasons why many may end up with a little bit of egg on their faces as interest rates fall before they rise.

I agree with the view shared by many that, in the long term, as economic conditions normalise, interest rates will almost certainly rise. I cannot possibly disagree with that. The words to pay attention to, though, are ‘long term’. In the meantime, 2014 may contain one or two surprises, effectively delaying the bond bear market.

Now to those reasons, and in no particular order:

  1. The emerging market crisis escalates further;
  2. The Eurozone crisis re-ignites;
  3. The disinflationary trend intensifies and potentially turns into deflation;
  4. The economic recovery currently underway proves unsustainable; and/or
  5. Flow of funds provides more support for bonds than anticipated.

The emerging market crisis escalates further

Quite a serious crisis has been brewing in some EM countries since talks of Fed tapering first began in May of last year. I first referred to it in the September 2013 Absolute Return Letter (‘A Case of Broken BRICS?’ which you can find here). More recently the ‘Fragile Five’ have become the ‘Fragile Eight’, suggesting that the crisis is spreading (see for example Gavyn Davies’ excellent analysis here).

At the heart of this crisis is a realisation that many EM economies depend on foreign capital to fund their external deficits. That foreign capital is more often than not U.S. dollars. I am not the first to have noted that the ‘Fragile Five’ all run substantial current account deficits (chart 2).


Source: Barclays Research, Haver Analytics

The United States provides liquidity to the rest of the world through two channels, one of which is well understood whilst the other one is not. Extraordinarily expansive monetary policy in the U.S. in recent years has provided a surge of private capital flowing towards EM economies. This is now in danger of reversing (chart 3).


Source: World Bank

The World Bank has made a valiant effort to estimate the effect of QE on capital flows and have found that over 60% of all capital inflows to EM countries can be either directly or indirectly attributed to QE (chart 4). No wonder one or two EM central bank chiefs are looking slightly unsettled at the moment.


Source: World Bank

The other channel through which the U.S. provides liquidity to the rest of the world is its chronic current account deficit. Every dollar of deficit in the U.S. is by definition somebody else’s surplus, so when the U.S current account deficit narrows, fewer dollars find their way to other countries. History is littered with examples of deteriorating U.S. dollar liquidity leading to a crisis somewhere, even if it is not always entirely predictable where and when it happens.

The U.S. economy is experiencing a true boom in domestic oil and gas production. In pre-crisis times, the U.S. would import the equivalent of 10-11 million barrels of oil per day (mbpd) to meet its demands. That has now dropped to 7-8 mbpd as a result of rapidly rising domestic production levels. Going into the 2008-09 recession, the U.S ran a quarterly deficit of about $200 billion. As a result of the deep recession, the quarterly deficit fell to less than $100 billion. Now, as the U.S. economy is doing better, one would have expected the deficit to deteriorate again, but it isn’t happening (chart 5). Increased domestic oil and gas production is the key reason behind this, and the trend is likely to continue for years to come.


Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Stage one of the EM crisis was a relatively contained crisis, limited to a handful of countries with large current account deficits. Stage two, which began in earnest early in the New Year, has engulfed other countries such as Argentina, Chile and Russia. The crisis is manifesting itself in two ways – higher interest rates and deteriorating foreign exchange rates. A recent article in the FT made a very good point about how falling exchange rates pose yet another set of problems for many EM economies many of which heavily subsidise fuel costs. As their currency falls in value, the fuel price soars when measured in local currency (see here), putting further pressure on already stretched government budgets.

All of this has the potential to escalate into a full-blown EM crisis like the one we experienced in 1997-98, even if most EM countries are in much better shape today than they were going into the previous crisis. Remember, there is never only one cockroach! Should this happen (and I am not yet saying it definitely will happen), there will be significant private sector capital outflows from emerging markets seeking refuge in safe(r) havens, like T-bonds, bunds and gilts.

Then there is the ultimate joker, better known as the People’s Republic of China. The debt problems in China are massive, and the probability of a hard landing uncomfortably high. According to Morgan Stanley, no less than 45% of all private debt in China must be refinanced in the next 12 months. It appears that the Chinese leadership has finally begun to confront the problems. I have no particular insight into how well that process is managed but I feel obliged to remind you that debt bubbles rarely have happy endings.

The Eurozone crisis re-ignites

The problems in mainland Europe are well advertised and I see no need to repeat them all here. Suffice to say that the Eurozone banking system continues to be seriously under-capitalised. The ECB recognises this and has published a preliminary list of 124 Eurozone banks that it will subject to an Asset Quality Review (AQR) later this year. The market seems to expect a shortfall of tier one capital of around €500 billion; however, a recent study conducted by two academics on behalf of CEPS (see here) suggests that the actual number will be much higher – at the order of €750-800 billion (chart 6).


Source: CEPS Policy Brief

The French have, unlike some of their Latin neighbours, managed to escape the worst of the storms in recent years, but this may change soon, provided the analysis above is correct. €280 billion in new capital is an awful lot of money, even for the French, and President Hollande may soon have bigger issues than his private affairs to deal with.

Could the AQR re-ignite the crisis and de-rail all the good work of the last couple of years? It could, but it is not my base case. A central problem in the early days of Europe’s fight against crisis was the perceived lack of a lender of last resort. Then, in the summer of 2012, Super Mario gave his famous ‘Whatever it Takes’ speech, and the markets haven’t looked back since. Draghi, without spending a penny, single-handedly managed to persuade investors that the ECB is indeed the de- facto lender of last resort, even if officials continue to avoid using the term when referring to the ECB.

Having said that, the very public debate that is likely to follow the publication of the AQR could very well lead to a renewed widening of yield spreads between perceived safe havens and the crisis countries. This is my second reason why bond yields in the U.S., U.K. and Germany could actually fall in 2014.

The disinflationary trend intensifies and potentially turns into deflation

A more likely consequence of the 2014 AQR is sustained pressure on lending activities across the Eurozone, a trend which is already underway. Most banks in the Eurozone have seen the writing on the wall and are already preparing for higher capital standards. Of the larger countries, only in France does the penny not seem to have dropped yet (chart 7).


Source: Standard & Poors

The Eurozone is probably only one shock away from outright deflation. Consumer price inflation is running at 0.7% year-on-year, and that number is inflated by austerity driven tax hikes. According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, if those tax rises are stripped out, then (and I quote) “Italy, Spain, Holland, Portugal, Greece, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Latvia, as well as euro-pegged Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria and Lithuania have all been in outright deflation since May […]. Underlying prices have been dropping in Poland and the Czech Republic since July, and France since August.” Not good. The inflation trend is unequivocally down and there is nothing to suggest that it is about to change (chart 8).


Source: Societe Generale Cross Asset Research

The one shock that would take the Eurozone into deflationary territory could indeed come from an escalation of the EM crisis, or it could come from somewhere few consider to be an issue right now – oil prices. I referred earlier to rising production volumes in the United States. A similar trend is to be expected from OPEC with both Libya and Iran (and possibly also Iraq) anticipating a significant increase in production levels, possibly as much as 3 mbpd between the two countries. If this happens at a time where much of the world is struggling to fire on all cylinders, oil prices could experience a significant drop.

The risk of outright deflation is much lower in the U.K. and U.S. than it is in the Eurozone. The U.K. is notoriously inflation-prone; however, more recently it has benefitted from a period of extraordinarily low growth in wages which will almost certainly not persist, if the economy continues to grow at the current rate. At the same time, the currency has a significant impact on UK inflation. When sterling is weak, inflation accelerates and vice versa. The recent strength of sterling has undoubtedly suppressed U.K. inflation to levels that are not consistent with current economic activity.

Underlying inflation is probably softer in the U.S. than it is in the U.K. but to suggest that the U.S. is on the verge of outright deflation seems to me to be a step too far. U.S. inflation has benefitted from a considerable amount of labour market slack in recent years but, if a recent study from Barclays Research is to be believed, that is about to change (chart 9).


Source: Barclays Research

On the other hand, those who expect QE to ultimately lead to a dramatic rise in inflation rates are likely to be thoroughly disappointed. We are still in the early stages of deleveraging, following the bust of a massive credit cycle (chart 10). Disinflation, or perhaps even deflation, is the natural consequence of such deleveraging – not inflation. Any risk to our central forecast that bond yields will remain largely unchanged in 2014 is thus to the downside (as in yields going down, not up).


Source: Reinhart & Rogoff, IMF Working Paper

The economic recovery currently underway proves unsustainable

U.S. economic indicators have been mixed recently. Home sales, auto sales and capital goods orders have all shown signs of weakness. It may be no more than a wobble or it may be signs of a turning point in the economy but, as Frank Veneroso states: “The U.S. economy almost never grows above trend without participation from these three cyclical sectors: autos, capex, and housing.”

Veneroso goes further in his analysis and makes a very interesting point:

You have to mistrust all the economic data. Why? BECAUSE AT TURNING POINTS IT IS ALWAYS WRONG. Ninety percent of all economic forecasters do not recognize a recession because the preliminary data always says there is no recession. It is only later that the data is revised to show a recession. After having failed to correctly forecast the economy for decades, Alan Greenspan late in his tenure as Fed Chairman realized why: he told us then that there is so much extrapolation in the preliminary economic data it can never reflect important cyclical changes. Economists never tell you this, because to do so would be tantamount to saying that if they forecast the upcoming data correctly they will be wrong about the underlying reality since it is always greatly revised at turning points. If this truth was well advertised, those who pay for their bogus forecasting exercise might not pay them as much – or at all.”
Frank Veneroso: “U.S. Economy – Will the Fed Taper $10 Billion?”

Gavyn Davies takes a more sanguine position:

There have been some mildly disappointing data releases in the US, but these have been mostly due to an excessive build-up in manufacturing inventories since mid-2013, and the prospects for final demand seem firm.
Gavyn Davies: http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2014/02/02/the-ems-fragile-8-must-save-themselves

We will have to wait and see who is right and who is wrong; however, I don’t particular like the quality of recent corporate earnings reports. Even to the untrained eye it is pretty obvious that many companies are struggling to deliver the earnings growth expected of them. Massive buyback programmes are used to generate EPS growth, but underlying sales and profits growth is dismal. This cannot go on forever. Given this and all the other factors conspiring against economic growth, the risk to our central forecast is very much on the downside.

Flow of funds provides more support for bonds than anticipated

Now to the fifth and final reason why the bond market could confound everyone this year and deliver positive rather than negative returns – flow of funds. Bond mutual funds hold record high levels of cash (chart 11), supposedly prepared for a sell-off in bonds, but with plenty of dry powder to step in and ultimately provide support, should the anticipated sell-off materialise.


Source: Deutsche Bank

Secondly, U.S. pension funds have had a very strong year on the back of the powerful equity rally and, as a result, have increased the average funding ratio to 92% (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20131107/NEWS03/131109861?tags=|307|77|82). Such funding level was not expected to be reached until 2017 at the earliest, and the fact that the industry is several years ahead of its own recovery plan could very well mean that many pension funds decide to take some risk off the table in 2014 and move their funds into what is perceived to be a safer asset class – namely bonds.

Thirdly, foreign investors are often considered to be a risk factor when it comes to the outlook for U.S. bond yields and thus, by default, for bond yields in other developed markets as well (due to the high correlation between bond markets in most developed countries). Such views are often expressed in complete disregard of national accounting identities. The rest of the world’s claims on the United States must equal the sum of all prior U.S. current account deficits. The rest of the world doesn’t have to hold U.S. T-bonds but they must hold U.S. assets of some kind.

So, if we know that the U.S. economy will produce a current account deficit of $400 billion or so in 2014, we know that foreign claims on the U.S. will rise by $400 billion. From decades of experience, we also know that the vast majority of such claims will be placed in highly liquid instruments such as Treasuries. Foreigners now own near 50% of all Treasuries outstanding (chart 12). Most importantly, and the point missed by many, we know that the rest of the world simply cannot sell U.S. assets, even if they wanted to!


Source: Deutsche Bank

Conclusion

For all these reasons I am not at all convinced that 2014 will be the year where the bond market finally breaks down, but I have saved my trump card for last. I was recently introduced to a bond research firm called Applied Global Macro Research (www.appliedglobalmacroresearch.com). Started by Jason Benderly, who is an ex- colleague of mine from my days at Goldman Sachs and with a strong Danish line- up (Carsten Valgreen and Niels Bjørn both of whom came from senior positions at Danske Bank), I am embarrassed to admit that I haven’t paid attention to them until recently when a good friend forwarded a research paper called ‘The Year of the U.S. Curve Flattener’, authored by Carsten.


Source: Applied Global Macro Research

Applied Global Macro Research is a quant shop. The smart guys working there have built several interesting models, but the one catching my attention is a model designed to identify the basic drivers of 10-year T-bond yields. The research is highly proprietary, so I am not going to give everything away, but suffice to say that the model explains about 70% of the change in the 10-year yield over time. However, it is when you make some assumptions about the three underlying factors that the story becomes really interesting. Even in a strong economic environment, the model suggests that the total return on 10-year T-bonds in 2014 will be close to zero. Yields rise modestly in that scenario, but the carry will almost fully offset those losses. On the other hand, should the U.S. economy actually weaken, 10-year T-bonds should generate very attractive returns.

This asymmetry in expected returns is largely a function of the historically high spread between U.S. 2-year and 10-year Treasuries (the blue line in chart 13 above). On that basis, the smart trade appears to be a spread trade – long 10-year vs. short 2-year Treasuries – rather than an outright short at the long end. For this and all the other reasons mentioned above, I cannot be bearish on bonds, be it U.S. or European.

Niels C. Jensen
4 February 2014

Like Outside the Box?
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It’s your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.
Outside the Box is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting www.MauldinEconomics.com.
Please write to [email protected] to inform us of any reproductions, including when and where copy will be reproduced. You must keep the letter intact, from introduction to disclaimers. If you would like to quote brief portions only, please reference www.MauldinEconomics.com.
To subscribe to John Mauldin’s e-letter, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/subscribe
To change your email address, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/change-address

Outside the Box and MauldinEconomics.com is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and those that he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest and is not in any way a testimony of, or associated with, Mauldin’s other firms. John Mauldin is the Chairman of Mauldin Economics, LLC. He also is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states, President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) member FINRA, SIPC, through which securities may be offered . MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB) and NFA Member. Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any alternative investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a prospectus or similar offering document. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Please make sure to review important disclosures at the end of each article. Mauldin companies may have a marketing relationship with products and services mentioned in this letter for a fee.

Note: Joining The Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and its partners at http://www.MauldinCircle.com (formerly AccreditedInvestor.ws) or directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out material that is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private and non-private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Capital Management Group; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management; and Plexus Asset Management. Investment offerings recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment fund and account managers have total trading authority over their funds or accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading programs could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk. There is often no secondary market for an investor’s interest in alternative investments, and none is expected to develop.

 

 

 

SP 500 Elliott Wave Forecast Unfolding As We Projected, What Is Next?

By David A. Banister – MarketTrendForecast.com

Back on January 15th we wrote an article and also a elliott wave forecast for both the public and our subscribers showing a likely top at a maximum of 1868 on the SP 500.  We said that Elliott Wave Major 3 of Primary Wave 3 would top no higher than that level.  In fact, we can go back to September 4th 2013 and we projected a Major 3 high as 1822-1829.  Turns out we were only about 1% off 4 months in advance of projecting that high, and once again we are on track here with Major 4 commencing from Major 3 highs.

Below is the Major 3 chart we sent out on September 12th in public articles and private reports

Elliott Wave Forecasts

We simply use Fibonacci analysis of wave patterns which are based on human behavioural tendencies that go back centuries. Elliott Wave Theory is often hard to put into practice, so sometimes it gets a bad name.  However, a bad steak at a restaurant doesn’t mean you never have steak again right? The practitioner must hone his or her skills over time and work to improve accuracy.

Our view is pretty simple in that the Major wave 3 was 583 points going from 1267 to 1850, the double top.

Below is the chart we did on January 15th in advance of this top:

Elliott Wave Analysis

We now know in hindsight that we topped out at 1850.  So what we want to do is simply take the 583 point rally of 1267 to 1850 (major 2 lows to Major 3 highs) and compute a retracement.  We use 23.6%, 31.2%, and 38% Fibonacci figures to come up with estimates. Those come in at 1713 on the shallow end of a correction (wave 4) and 1628 on the lower end.  (See chart below)

Elliott Wave Theory

Now, assuming we are on track… once this Major 3 completes we will see a Major wave 5 of Primary wave 3 taking us to all-time highs. This will then complete Primary wave 3 of this 5 primary wave bull cycle and then larger Primary wave 4 corrections will ensue from those highs.  We will know we are wrong in our degrees of wave counts if we pierce the 1628 level on the downside. That would indicate Primary 3 topped out 1850 and we are in Primary 4, which is not our current view.

Join us to stay up to date on a daily basis
Save $100 at www.MarketTrendForecast.com

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Casey on Gold Stocks

By Doug Casey, Chairman, Casey Research

The following is an excerpt from famous contrarian speculator and libertarian freethinker Doug Casey’s latest book, Right on the Money. The interview with Casey Research Chief Metals & Mining Analyst Louis James took place on September 30, 2009, when gold stocks were clearly rebounding from their post-crash lows. Doug’s thoughts are just as timely and true today as they were then, presenting a perfect picture of this most volatile and most rewarding of sectors…

Louis: Doug, we were talking about gold last week, so we should follow up with a look at gold stocks. If one of the reasons to own gold is that it’s real—it’s not paper, it’s not simultaneously someone else’s liability—why own gold stocks?

Doug: Leverage. Gold stocks are problematical as investments. That’s true of all resource stocks, especially stocks in exploration companies, as opposed to producers. If you want to make a proper investment, the way to do that is to follow the dictates of Graham and Dodd, using the method Warren Buffett has proven to be so successful over many years.

Unfortunately, resource stocks in general and metals exploration stocks in particular just don’t lend themselves to such methodologies. They are another class of security entirely.

Louis: “Security” may not be the right word. As I was reading the latest edition of Graham and Dodd’s classic book on securities analysis, I realized that their minimum criteria for investment wouldn’t even apply to the gold majors. The business is just too volatile. You can’t apply standard metrics.

Doug: It’s just impossible. For one thing, they cannot grow consistently, because their assets are always depleting. Nor can they predict what their rate of exploration success is going to be.

Louis: Right. As an asset, a mine is something that gets used up, as you dig it up and sell it off.

Doug: Exactly. And the underlying commodity prices can fluctuate wildly for all sorts of reasons. Mining stocks, and resource stocks in general, have to be viewed as speculations, as opposed to investments.

But that can be a good thing. For example, many of the best speculations have a political element to them. Governments are constantly creating distortions in the market, causing misallocations of capital. Whenever possible, the speculator tries to find out what these distortions are, because their consequences are predictable. They result in trends you can bet on. It’s like the government is guaranteeing your success, because you can almost always count on the government to do the wrong thing.

The classic example, not just coincidentally, concerns gold. The U.S. government suppressed its price for decades while creating huge numbers of dollars before it exploded upward in 1971. Speculators that understood some basic economics positioned themselves accordingly.

As applied to metals stocks, governments are constantly distorting the monetary situation, and gold in particular, being the market’s alternative to government money, is always affected by that. So gold stocks are really a way to short government—or go long on government stupidity, as it were.

The bad news is that governments act chaotically, spastically. The beast jerks to the tugs on its strings held by its various puppeteers. So it’s hard to predict price movements in the short term. You can only bet on the end results of chronic government monetary stupidity.

The good news is that, for that very same reason, these stocks are extremely volatile. That makes it possible, from time to time, to get not just doubles or triples but 10-baggers, 20-baggers, and even 100-to-1 shots in these mining stocks.

That kind of upside makes up for the fact that these stocks are lousy investments and that you will lose money on most of them, if you hold them long enough. Most are best described as burning matches.

Louis: One of our mantras: Volatility can be your best friend.

Doug: Yes, volatility can be your best friend, as long as your timing is reasonable. I don’t mean timing tops and bottoms—no one can do that. I mean spotting the trend and betting on it when others are not, so you can buy low to later sell high. If you chase momentum and excitement, if you run with the crowd, buying when others are buying, you’re guaranteed to lose. You have to be a contrarian. In this business, you’re either a contrarian or road kill. When everyone is talking about these stocks on TV, you know the masses are interested, and that means they’ve gone to a level at which you should be a seller and not a buyer.

That makes it more a game of playing the psychology of the market, rather than doing securities analysis.

I’m not sure how many thousands of gold mining stocks there are in the world today—I’ll guess about 3,000—but most of them are junk. If they have any gold, it’s mainly in the words written on the stock certificates. So, in addition to knowing when to buy and when to sell, your choice of individual stocks has to be intelligent too.

Remember, most mining companies are burning matches.

Louis: All they do is spend money.

Doug: Exactly. That’s because most mining companies are really exploration companies. They are looking for viable deposits, which is quite literally like looking for a needle in a haystack. Finding gold is one thing. Finding an economical deposit of gold is something else entirely.

And even if you do find an economical deposit of gold, it’s exceptionally difficult to make money mining it. Most of your capital costs are up front. The regulatory environment today is onerous in the extreme. Labor costs are far above what they used to be. It ’s a really tough business.

Louis: If someone describes a new business venture to you, saying, “Oh, it’ll be a gold mine!” Do you run away?

Doug: Almost. And it’s odd because, historically, gold mining used to be an excellent business. For example, take the Homestake Mine in Deadwood, South Dakota, which was discovered in 1876, at just about the time of Custer’s last stand, actually. When they first raised capital for that, their dividend structure was something like 100 percent of the initial share price, paid per month. That was driven by the extraordinary discovery. Even though the technology was very primitive and inefficient in those days, labor costs were low, you didn’t have to worry about environmental problems, there were no taxes on whatever you earned, you didn’t have to pay mountains of money to lawyers. Today, you probably pay your lawyers more than you pay your geologists and engineers.

So, the business has changed immensely over time. It’s perverse because with the improvements in technology, gold mining should have become more economical, not less. The farther back you go in history, the higher the grade you’d have to mine in order to make it worthwhile. If we go back to ancient history, a mineable deposit probably had to be at least an ounce of gold per ton to be viable.

Today, you can mine deposits that run as low as a hundredth of an ounce (0.3 g/t). It’s possible to go even lower, but you need very cooperative ore. And that trend toward lower grades becoming economical is going to continue.

For thousands of years, people have been looking for gold in the most obscure and bizarre places all over the world. That’s because of the 92 naturally occurring elements in the periodic table, gold was probably the first metal that man discovered and made use of. The reason for that is simple: Gold is the most inert of the metals.

Louis: Because it doesn’t react easily and form compounds, you can find the pure metal in nature.

Doug: Right. You can find it in its pure form, and it doesn’t degrade and it doesn’t rust. In fact, of all the elements, gold is not only the most inert, it’s also the most ductile and the most malleable. And, after silver, it’s the best conductor of both heat and electricity, and the most reflective. In today’s world, that makes it a high-tech metal. New uses are found for it weekly. It has many uses besides its primary one as money and its secondary use as jewelry. But it was probably also man’s first metal.

But for that same reason, all the high-grade, easy-to-find gold deposits have already been found. There’s got to be a few left to be discovered, but by and large, we’re going to larger-volume, lower-grade, “no-see-um”-type deposits at this point. Gold mining is no longer a business in which, like in the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, you can get a couple of guys, some picks and mules, and go out and find the mother lode. Unfortunately. Now, it’s usually a large-scale, industrial earth-moving operation next to a chemical plant.

Louis: They operate on very slender margins, and they can be rendered unprofitable by a slight shift in government regulations or taxes. So, we want to own these companies… why?

Doug: You want them strictly as speculative vehicles that offer the potential for 10, 100, or even 1,000 times returns on your money. Getting 1,000 times on your money is  extraordinary, of course—you have to buy at the bottom and sell at the top—but people have done it. It’s happened not just once or twice, but quite a number of times that individual stocks have moved by that much.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that these things fluctuate down even more dramatically than they fluctuate up. They are burning matches that can actually go to zero. And when they go down, they usually drop at least twice as fast as they went up.

Louis: That’s true, but as bad as a total loss is, you can only lose 100 percent—but there’s no such limit to the upside. A 100 percent gain is only a double, and we do much better than that for subscribers numerous times per year.

Doug: And as shareholders in everything from Enron to AIG, to Lehman Brothers, and many more have found out, even the biggest, most solid companies can go to zero.

Louis: So, what you’re telling me is that the answer to “Why gold?” is really quite different to the answer to “Why gold stocks?” These are in completely different classes, bought for completely different reasons.

Doug: Yes. You buy gold, the metal, because you’re prudent. It’s for safety, liquidity, insurance. The gold stocks, even though they explore for or mine gold, are at the polar opposite of the investment spectrum; you buy those for extreme volatility and the chance it creates for spectacular gains. It’s rather paradoxical, actually.

(to be continued)


Advertisement

Casey Research free online video event:

Upturn Millionaires

How to play the turning tides in the precious metals market

Wednesday, February 5, at 2:00 PM Eastern

With Doug Casey, Porter Stansberry, Rick Rule, John Mauldin, Frank Giustra, Ross Beaty, Louis James, and Marin Katusa

Click here to register


(continued)

Louis: You buy gold for safety and gold stocks specifically to profit from their “un-safety.”

Doug: Exactly. They really are total opposites, even though it’s the same commodity in question. It’s odd, but then, life is often stranger than fiction.

Louis: And it’s being a contrarian—”timing” in the sense of making a rational decision about a trend in evident motion—that helps stack the odds in your favor. It allows you to guess when market volatility will, on average, head upward, making it possible for you to buy low and sell high.

Doug: You know, I first started looking at gold stocks back in the early 1970s. In those days, South African stocks were the “blue chips” of the mining industry. As a country, South Africa mined about 60 percent of all the gold mined in the world, and costs were very low.

Gold was controlled at $35 per ounce until Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, but some of the South Africans were able to mine it for $20 an ounce or less. They were paying huge dividends.

Gold had run up from $35 to $200 in early 1974, then corrected down to $100 by 1976. It had come off 50 percent, but at the same time that gold was bottoming around $100, they had some serious riots in Soweto. So the gold stocks got a double hit: falling gold prices and fear of revolution in South Africa. That made it possible, in those days, to buy into short-lived, high-cost mining companies very cheaply; the stocks of the marginal companies were yielding current dividends of 50 to 75 percent. They were penny stocks in those days. They no longer exist; they’ve all been merged into mining finance houses long since then. Three names that I remember from those days were Leslie, Bracken, Grootvlei; I owned a lot of shares in them. If you bought Leslie for 80 cents a share, you’d expect, based on previous dividends, to get about 60 cents a share in that year.

But then gold started flying upward, the psychology regarding South Africa changed, and by 1980, the next real peak, you were getting several times what you paid for the stock, in dividends alone, per year.

Louis: Wow. I can think of some leveraged companies that might be able to deliver that sort of performance, if gold goes where we think it will. So, where do you think we are in the current trend or metals cycle? You’ve spoken of the Stealth, Wall of Worry, and Mania Phases of a bull market for metals—do you still think of our market in those terms?

Doug: That’s the big question, isn’t it? Well, the last major bottom in this sector was from 1998 to 2002. Many of these junior mining stocks—mostly traded in Canada, where about 75 percent of all the gold stocks in the world trade—were trading for less than cash in the bank. Literally. You’d get all their properties, their technology, the expertise of their management, totally for free. Or less.

Louis: I remember seeing past issues in which you said, “If I could call your broker and order these stocks for you, I would.”

Doug: Yes. But nobody wanted to hear about it at that time. Gold was low, and there was a bubble in Internet stocks. Why would anyone want to get involved in a dead-duck, nineteenth century, “choo-choo train” industry like gold mining? It had been completely discredited by the long bear market, but that made it the ideal time to buy them, of course. That was deep in the Stealth Phase.

Over the next six to eight years, these stocks took off, moving us into the Wall of Worry Phase. But the stocks didn’t fly the way they did in past bull markets. I think that’s mostly because they were so depleted of capital, they were selling lots of shares. So their market capitalizations—the aggregate value given them by the market—were increasing, but their share prices weren’t. Not as much.

Remember, these companies very rarely have any earnings, but they always need capital, and the only way they can get it is by selling new shares, which dilutes the value of the individual shares, including those held by existing shareholders.

Then last fall hit, and nobody, but nobody, wanted anything speculative. These most volatile of stocks showed their nature and plunged through the floor in the general flight to safety. That made last fall the second best time to buy mining shares this cycle, and I know you recommended some pretty aggressive buying last fall, near the bottom.

Now, many of these shares—the better ones at least—have recovered substantially, and some have even surpassed pre-crash highs. Again, the Wall of Worry Phase is characterized by large fluctuations that separate the wolves from the sheep (and the sheep from their cash).

Where does that leave us? Well, as you know, I think gold is going to go much, much higher. And that is going to direct a lot of attention toward these gold stocks. When people get gold fever, they are not just driven by greed, they’re usually driven by fear as well, so you get both of the most powerful market motivators working for you at once. It’s a rare class of securities that can benefit from fear and greed at once.

Remember that the Fed ’s pumping up of the money supply ignited a huge bubble in tech stocks, and then an even more massive global bubble in real estate—which is over for a long time, incidentally—but they’re still creating tons of dollars. That will inevitably ignite other asset bubbles. Where? I can’t say for certain, but I say the odds are extremely high that as gold goes up, for all the reasons we spoke about last week and more, that a lot of this funny money is going to be directed into these gold stocks, which are not just a microcap area of the market but a nanocap area of the market.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: When the public gets the bit in its teeth and wants to buy gold stocks, it’s going to be like trying to siphon the contents of the Hoover Dam through a garden hose.

Gold stocks, as a class, are going to be explosive. Now, you’ve got to remember that most of them are junk. Most will never, ever find an economical deposit. But it’s hopes and dreams that drive them, not reality, and even without merit, they can still go 10, 20, or 30 times your entry price. And the companies that actually have the goods can go much higher than that.

At the moment, gold stock prices are not as cheap, in either relative or absolute terms, as they were at the turn of the century, nor last fall. But given that the Mania Phase is still ahead, they are good speculations right now—especially the ones that have actually discovered gold deposits that look economical.

Louis: So, if you buy good companies now, with good projects, good management, working in stable jurisdictions, with a couple years of operating cash to see them through the Wall of Worry fluctuations—if you buy these and hold for the Mania Phase, you should come out very well. But you can’t blink and get stampeded out of your positions when the market fluctuates sharply.

Doug: That’s exactly right. At the particular stage where we are right now in this market for these extraordinarily volatile securities, if you buy a quality exploration company, or a quality development company (which is to say, a company that has found something and is advancing it toward production), those shares could still go down 10, 20, 30, or even 50 percent, but ultimately there’s an excellent chance that that same stock will go up by 10, 50, or even 100 times. I hate to use such hard-to-believe numbers, but that is the way this market works.

When the coming resource bubble is ignited, there are excellent odds you’ll be laughing all the way to the bank in a few years.

I should stress that I’m not saying that this is the perfect time to buy. We’re not at a market bottom as we were in 2001, nor an interim bottom like last November, and I can’t say I know the Mania Phase is just around the corner. But I think this is a very reasonable time to be buying these stocks. And it’s absolutely a good time to start educating yourself about them. There’s just such a good chance a massive bubble is going to be ignited in this area.

Louis: These are obviously the kinds of things we research, make recommendations on, and educate about in our metals newsletters, but one thing we should stress for nonsubscribers reading this interview is that this strategy applies only to the speculative portion of your portfolio. No one should gamble with their rent money nor the money they’ve saved for college tuition, etcetera.

Doug: Right. The ideal speculator’s portfolio would be divided into 10 areas, each totally different and not correlated with each other. Each of these areas should have, in your subjective opinion, the ability to move 1,000 percent in price.

Why is that? Because most of the time, we’re wrong when we pick areas to speculate in, certainly in areas where you can’t apply Graham-Dodd-type logic. But if you’re wrong on 9 out of 10 of them, and it would be hard to do that badly, then you at least break even on the one 10-bagger (1,000 percent winner). What’s more likely is that a couple will blow up and go to zero, a couple will go down 30, 40, 50 percent, but you’ll also have a couple doubles or triples, and maybe, on one or two of them, you’ll get a 10-to-1 or better win.

So, it looks very risky (and falling in love with any single stock is very risky), but it’s actually an intelligent way to diversify your risk and stack the odds of profiting on volatility in your favor.

Note that I don’t mean that these “areas” should be 10 different stocks in the junior mining sector—that wouldn’t be diversification. As I say, ideally, I’d have 10 such areas with potential for 1,000 percent gains, but it’s usually impossible to find that many at once. If you can find only two or three, what do you do with the rest of your money? Well, at this point, I would put a lot of it into gold, in one form or another, while keeping your powder dry as you look for the next idea opportunity.

And ideally, I’d look at every market in every country in the world. People who look only in the United States, or only in stocks, or only in real estate—they just don’t get to see enough balls to swing at.

Louis: Okay, got it. Thank you very much.

In 2009, at the time of this interview, Doug said it was not the perfect time to buy because “we’re not at a market bottom.” That, however, has changed dramatically. In the last two years, gold mining stocks have gotten slaughtered, and even the best companies with proven, high-grade gold deposits are now trading 50-75% below their actual value.

The time where contrarian investors can literally make a fortune may be close: Right now, Doug and many other seasoned resource investors are seeing unmistakable signs of an imminent turnaround in the gold market.

Find out how to play the turning tides of the precious metals market by watching “Upturn Millionaires,” a free online video event hosted by Casey Research—featuring Doug Casey, Porter Stansberry, Rick Rule, John Mauldin, Frank Giustra, Ross Beaty, Louis James, and Marin Katusa. Click here to save your seat.

 

 

 

Poland maintains rates, still sees steady rates until end-H1

By CentralBankNews.info
    Poland’s central bank maintained its reference rate at 2.50 percent, as expected, expects the economic recovery to continue in coming quarters amid subdued inflationary pressures and reiterated that policy rates should be “kept unchanged at least until the end of the first half of 2014.”
    The National Bank of Poland (NBP), which cut rates by 225 basis points from November 2012 through July 2013, said preliminary data show that economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2013 exceed the third quarter, with exports still contributing substantially. Data on industrial output and retail sales, along with a leveling off of the decline in construction and assembly output, confirms the revival.
    After ending its cycle of easing in July, the central bank in November pushed back the date for any rate rise until the end of June this year and has maintained this view since then.
    Poland’s Gross Domestic Product grew by 0.6 percent in the third quarter from the second, the fifth consecutive quarter of accelerating growth. Compared with the third quarter of 2012, GDP was up by 1.9 percent, up from 0.8 percent in the second quarter.

    The NBP said the recovery was improving the conditions in the labour market with signs of a growth in employment. However, unemployment remains at elevated levels, hampering wage pressure.
    Poland’s unemployment rate rose to 13.4 percent in December, up from November’s 13.2 percent.
    Lending to the private sector has accelerated slightly, the central bank said, though it remains  limited and growth in lending to enterprises and households was low. Since mid-2013, however, there has been a gradual acceleration in consumer loans.

     Inflation in Poland is well below the central bank’s target of 2.5 percent, plus/minus one percentage point. In December headline inflation rose marginally to 0.7 percent from November’s 0.6 percent.

    Core inflation is also low, the NBP said, confirming weak demand pressures, and a further decline in producer prices showed weak cost pressures. Inflation expectations are also low.
    Last week one of the board members of the central bank, Jerzy Hausner, said the NBP was likely to raise rates in the second half of this year if projections in March confirm that the economic recovery is gaining strength.

     http://ift.tt/1iP0FNb