China, Base Metal Tiger, Sets the Trend for Metals

Source: Brian Sylvester of The Gold Report (7/1/13)

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/15413

Industrial metal prices have struggled to find firm footing. Stefan Ioannou of Haywood Securities tees up near-, medium- and long-term scenarios for three industrial metals—copper, zinc and nickel—and explains why he is most enthusiastic about zinc. In this interview with The Gold Report, Ioannou discusses companies that stand to benefit from the coming supply squeezes and China’s role as both supplier and consumer of all three metals.

The Gold Report: In January, Haywood Securities forecast a copper price above $3.60/pound ($3.60/lb) for the remainder of 2013. Six months later, copper is struggling to remain above $3/lb. What is causing the weakness?

Stefan Ioannou: A lot of it relates to uncertainty regarding the global economic situation. Early in the year, the price hovered around $3.25–3.50/lb and recently nosedived to $3/lb. That happened on the back of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s hints that quantitative easing in the United States may end in mid-2014, raising concerns that U.S. demand for raw goods will decline. Because copper goes into a lot of raw goods, that supposes less demand. In addition, copper inventories are well over 600,000 tons (600 Kt), which is high on a historic basis.

China is the other big concern. Its manufacturing numbers are weakening. People are worried that China, which really drives a lot of the metal stories, is not growing as fast as expected.

TGR: Have you revised your price deck?

SI: In early June we lowered copper’s average price for 2013 to $3.35/lb. Year to date, the average copper price is $3.43/lb.

TGR: Is that why the landslide in early April at the Bingham Canyon copper mine in Utah, operated by Rio Tinto Plc (RIO:NYSE; RIO:ASX; RIO:LSE; RTPPF:OTCPK) subsidiary Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., has not had more of an impact on the copper price?

SI: It is probably a combination of two things. One, investors are very focused on the global economic data and general market sentiment. Two, there have been a handful of mine-specific issues, Bingham Canyon being an important one.

Bingham Canyon was about a 165 million ton (165 Mt) failure, which is quite large. It will take a long time to dig out and get the mine back up to steady, safe production. There has not been much disclosure into what the impact will be. I anticipate the Q2/13 results will include commentary, now that the company has had time to assess the damage.

There have been two other mine-specific issues in the copper space. Twenty-eight people were killed at Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.’s (FCX:NYSE) Grasberg mine in Indonesia in mid-May. The mine was shut down for several weeks and is just now ramping back up.

The third mine-specific issue happened in China in early June. One of Jinchuan Group Co. Ltd.’s smelters declared force majeure due to a major equipment failure that prevented it from producing enough refined copper for its end users. Again, there is not a lot of information on that.

But, overall, I think most investors are focused on the global macroeconomic issues, not on specific issues at copper projects.

TGR: Some of the world’s biggest miners, like Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP:NYSE; BHPLF:OTCPK), have posted “for sale” signs on noncore assets. Some midtier base metals players have bought what might be considered bargains. Is this an investment thesis worth following?

SI: There is definitely a shift in what the majors are including in their quarterly results, their management discussion and analyses, and the question periods during their conference calls.

They are shifting focus to their existing mines, emphasizing cost-cutting and efficiency measures. There is less talk about pursuing larger, capital-intensive development projects. These are being shelved or put up for sale, creating buying opportunities for midtiers.

A recent example is Capstone Mining Corp.’s (CS:TSX) purchase of the Pinto Valley mine in Arizona from BHP, for about $650 million ($650M). Based on our analysis, Capstone did not overpay, but it definitely was not a bargain.

TGR: Can Pinto Valley be profitable at $3/lb copper?

SI: Yes, I think so. It is a low-grade mine, but with an estimated US$1.80/lb average total copper cash cost over the next five years, it has space.

TGR: What are Capstone’s other producing assets?

SI: The company has two mines in production, Minto in the Yukon and Cozamin in Mexico. Both are high-grade projects with modest capital expenses, each producing about 40 million pounds (40 Mlb) of copper per year. Pinto Valley will be an operating mine on Capstone’s financial statements by year-end.

The real growth step for Capstone is its Santo Domingo project in Chile. It is a game changer for Capstone—a multibillion-dollar project, low grade, very big tonnage. It also has associated byproduct credits: iron ore (magnetite) concentrate.

Our model shows Capstone’s cash cost profile, Minto and Cozamin combined, at $1.90–2/lb for 2013 and 2014. As we add Pinto Valley and Santo Domingo, the company’s long-term average cost decreases below $1/lb net of byproduct credits.

TGR: You calculate that Capstone is trading at roughly 0.4 times net asset value (NAV). Is that a typical multiple for midtier companies in this space?

SI: You have to be careful looking at the metrics on a company like Capstone because it has such a significant growth profile. With most established producers, people look at operating cash flow this year and maybe next year, and put a multiple on that.

This year and next, Capstone is producing 80 Mlb copper. Looking out three to five years, it could be producing up to 400 Mlb/year. Near-term cash flow does not represent the company’s overall potential. You have to look at NAV, which brings in additional value for something like Santo Domingo. Our target price for Capstone is $3.50/share.

TGR: Have other midtier miners bought assets from a major producer lately?

SI: Not among our direct coverage. Usually, it is the opposite way around—the majors buying assets from juniors once the junior has developed as far as possible before hitting that financing wall.

TGR: Southeastern Europe is emerging as a copper district; some are comparing it to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). One exploration drill returned 7.2% copper. What is happening there?

SI: That was drilled by Reservoir Minerals Inc. (RMC:TSX.V). It was a spectacular drill hole in the Timok magmatic complex in Serbia. This is a joint venture between Reservoir and Freeport-McMoRan. At the end of the day, Freeport stands to own 75% of the project following the completion of a full feasibility study. Freeport is in the driver’s seat, and Reservoir is along for the ride.

This is a historic copper mining district. There are two geologic targets, and each company has an interest that is slanted to one or the other. Reservoir’s intersect is in a high-sulphidation zone, which is usually a complex zone above a larger copper porphyry deposit. The geophysics suggest a significantly larger copper porphyry target beneath the high-sulphidation target. Reservoir is interested in the splashy, high-grade drill results from the upper zone and Freeport is looking at the porphyry potential at depth. We will see how it plays out.

You have to drill through the high-sulphidation zone to get into the copper porphyry, which means you get drill results from both zones. We do not know the size of the high-sulphidation zone, but it could, at the least, be interesting to a midtier producer. If the porphyry target at depth pans out, it would likely interest a major.

TGR: It will require more discoveries to qualify this as an area play.

SI: Yes. There are some juniors poking around nearby Reservoir. The jury is still out on the size and grade potential of the porphyry. In the meantime, the high-grade, high-sulphidation at surface has caught the market’s attention.

TGR: In your last interview with Streetwise Reports, you said that all-in costs for copper miners averaged $2–2.50/lb. What is the average, all-in cost-per-pound among your top three picks in the copper space?

SI: For Capstone, we are modeling $1.90–2/lb for its two combined mines this year and next year. But, once Santo Domingo is in production, its average corporate copper cash cost will be closer to $1/lb net of byproduct credits, making it a fairly low-cost producer.

Copper Mountain Mining Corp. (CUM:TSX) is just ramping up production, but as it reaches steady-state production, we anticipate costs over the next year on the order of $1.30–1.50/lb.

Nevsun Resources Ltd. (NSU:TSX; NSU:NYSE.MKT) is just finishing up gold production at its Bisha mine in Eritrea. Looking at 2014 to 2016, it becomes a copper-dominant producer at fairly high grades. Because of that, we see its copper costs below $1.25/lb.

It is fair to say most copper companies, even the higher cost ones, are still producing copper at below $2.50/lb.

TGR: Copper Mountain recently made emergency repairs at its mill. Is that taken care of and is it on track to meet its targets?

SI: It has been a slow and tedious ramp-up. Copper Mountain finished building the mine in 2011 and has struggled with throughput issues ever since. The mine is designed to do 35,000 metric tons per day (35 Kmtpd) throughput. The ore is of variable hardness and is generally harder than expected. The company has tried various solutions and optimizations.

Unfortunately in late May, the transformer in its semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) mill, a key piece of milling equipment, failed. Copper Mountain had to take the SAG mill offline. Luckily, it was able to swap transformers from one of its two ball mills. But this temporary swap meant the SAG mill was running at lower-than-designed capacity for a few weeks. A new transformer has been installed and once the company reaches and maintains 35 Ktpd average throughput, the stock should be off to the races.

TGR: Your target price on Copper Mountain is $3/share. It was an investor darling a couple of years ago. Will it reach those levels again?

SI: Copper Mountain is a low-grade mine, which gives it significant leverage to the copper price. It is certainly an interesting play for copper bulls.

Market sentiment is negative on the copper price. You also have this lingering ramp-up fatigue. Once investors get over those two issues, Copper Mountain is due for a significant correction.

TGR: As you said, Nevsun has almost wrapped up mining the oxide—mostly gold—portion and is getting into the supergene ore, which is mostly copper. There can be hiccups going from oxide to supergene operations. Does Nevsun have a good grip on the geology?

SI: The fundamental difference is in the processing techniques. The upfront milling—making the rock smaller—is pretty much the same. The differences are in the back end.

In the case of the supergene, you float a metal concentrate, which you then truck to a port and ship out on a boat. Oxide gold requires a carbon-in-leach circuit to produce gold dore bars, which you then put on an airplane and send to Europe for sale.

From a geology point of view, in early 2012, the company had a significant reserve reconciliation problem in its oxide zone. A lot of that relates to the fact that oxides are, by their very nature, weathered rock and in some cases are not very competent. When the company drilled the oxide resource and reserve off, it had some core recovery issues in the reserve calculations. Nevsun did not have nearly as much gold as it initially estimated in the mine plan. That had a significant impact on the stock.

When you get into the primary copper and zinc mineralization, that rock is significantly more competent from a geology or a resource/reserve definition point of view. From a statistical point of view, you can deduce a lot more from it without leaving room for a significant error as happened in the oxide.

While there is always some risk in transitioning, it should be significantly less than we saw in the oxide.

TGR: What is your target price on Nevsun?

SI: Nevsun is $4.50/share.

TGR: Zinc is another metal with weak prices, but you believe higher zinc prices are not that far off. Why is that?

SI: Zinc is our choice for a base metal to be bullish on in the medium term. Inventory on the London Metals Exchange has been very high for more than 12 months, topping 1.2 Mt not too long ago. Now, it stands at just over 1 Mt.

The interesting dynamic here is the recent closure of several very large zinc mines. There is nothing fundamentally wrong operationally with these mines; they have simply run their course. In March, Xstrata Plc (XTA:LSE) shut down its Brunswick mine in New Brunswick, which produced almost 2% of the world’s zinc.

The last full year of production for the Century mine in Australia, owned by China Minmetals Corp. (CMIN:CH), is likely to be 2015. That mine accounts for almost 4% of world supply.

When you add up all the mines coming off in the next two to three years, it represents more than 10% of global supply.

The zinc market differs from the copper market in that smaller mines predominate. New advanced-stage zinc projects cannot meet that supply loss, let alone additional demand growth. Despite today’s high inventories, mines closing in 2014 and 2015 and the lack of new projects will squeeze the supply side and drive the price higher.

You can count the number of good zinc mines on one hand. Anyone who has any reasonable exposure to zinc stands to do well when the zinc price runs.

TGR: What are some of those zinc names?

SI: The go-to name will arguably be Trevali Mining Corp. (TV:TSX; TREVF:OTCQX). The company’s Santander mine in Peru is on the verge of commissioning. Its second project, Caribou, is in the Brunswick camp of New Brunswick. It should be in production by early 2014. Trevali will be one of the first junior to midtier zinc-focused companies to hit the ground running as an actual producer. That status alone ensures attention when the zinc price runs.

TMR: Santander is a past-producing mine. It was mothballed for a while due to cost problems. What will make it a profitable operation now?

SI: It is a completely different mine now. Back then it was mining from what it called the Santander pit. Now, it has underground ramp access to operations and a new mill, in which Glencore International Plc (GLEN:LSE; 0805:SEHK) is a significant partner.

This gives it a very different cost structure. The mine should make money at any price north of $0.50/lb.

TGR: Trevali owns 100% of Santander. Is the local community on board?

SI: Trevali has done a good job working with the communities and gaining support for mine redevelopment.

Peru in general is a favorable mining jurisdiction, as is Chile. In Argentina, on the other hand, the government has proposed a significant additional tax and royalty structure that would have a negative impact.

TGR: As you suggested, the Caribou mill and mine are about a year away from production. What is the upside for Trevali?

SI: Looking at Trevali’s two mines together, the company will be producing upward of 200 Mlb/year zinc in three or four years. By then, with a significantly higher zinc price, the company stands to generate significant cash flow and to have a significant treasury.

At 200 Mlb/year, Trevali becomes a target. Nyrstar NV (NYR:BR) took out Breakwater Resources Ltd. at roughly a 40% premium to market. It also took out Farallon Mining Ltd. at roughly a 30% premium to market in early 2011. The junior’s G9 mine in Mexico was ramping up to about 120 Mlb of zinc production per annum at the time.

In the zinc space, we would not be surprised to see the majors come down the food chain, given there isn’t much any bigger than what you see in a company like Trevali.

TGR: What is your price target on Trevali?

SI: My target is $1.35/share.

TGR: What other development-stage targets or companies are you following?

SI: Foran Mining Corp. (FOM:TSX.V) is a copper-zinc or zinc-copper story, depending on how you slice and dice it. Its primary project is McIlvenna Bay, located in Saskatchewan. It shares the geology of the Flin Flon greenstone belt that extends over into Manitoba. That is significant, in that the Flin Flon belt is where HudBay Minerals Inc.’s (HBM:TSX; HBM:NYSE) 777 and Lalor mines are. As a result, the regional infrastructure is outstanding: paved highways, power, etc. HudBay even has a zinc refinery there.

McIlvenna Bay is a very large deposit, a little over 25 Mt in total resources. It is the third largest zinc deposit discovered in this world-class mining camp.

Of the other juniors working in the Flin Flon greenstone belt, no other project is as large, and most are involved in joint ventures with HudBay, which would take the lion’s share of those projects for next to nothing. Foran, however, owns 100%.

TGR: A couple of years ago, HudBay Minerals bought the Lalor gold-copper-zinc mine near Snow Lake, Manitoba. That provides ore for HudBay’s mill. Is HudBay a realistic suitor in the near term?

SI: In the coming year or so, Lalor is the obvious focus. But HudBay has a huge investment in infrastructure up there. The last thing it wants to do is shut down the Flin Flon camp. The longer HudBay can keep it producing, the better. I view McIlvenna Bay as the next Lalor-type of transaction for HudBay. And HudBay would want to make that move before Lalor actually runs out of reserves because it will have to go through prefeasibility, feasibility study, permitting, design and construction.

Obviously, McIlvenna Bay is years out, but these projects take years to develop.

TGR: How is Foran’s development coming along?

SI: Foran’s most recent technical milestone is an integrated resource estimate. Previously, there were two resources, one for the zinc-rich, massive sulphide portion of the deposit and another for the footwall stringer zone, which is generally copper rich.

By combining the two and doing some additional drilling, it has a very solid resource model in hand now: more than 25 Mt on a total resource basis.

This summer, it is advancing additional technical and metallurgical work. That will feed into a preliminary feasibility study and set the stage for a full feasibility study.

TGR: What is your price target on Foran?

SI: It is $0.65/share.

TGR: Do you have one more development-stage zinc play?

SI: Donner Metals Ltd. (DON:TSX.V) is already in production, in a joint venture with Xstrata, on a mine called Bracemac-McLeod in a historic mining camp called Matagami in Québec. Donner owns 35% of the mine; Xstrata owns 65% and is the operator. Xstrata has been operating in the region for years and has an established mill. That limits the execution risk.

Donner started producing concentrate from Bracemac-McLeod ore in mid-May. With the way the payment schedules work in the joint venture, Donner will not receive any revenue on the zinc concentrate until 30 days after shipment. For the copper, the revenue will not come in until 90 days after shipment. As a result, even though Donner is generating revenue, it has has monthly cash calls from Xstrata for its share of operating costs and the capital costs of underground development. Donner just announced a deal to raise an additional $4.5M. I think the market in general was under the impression that it was already fully financed. This suggests otherwise. If Donner cannot get this deal done, it may have financial trouble ahead.

To be fair, a lot of that comes on the back of the zinc price. Donner’s previous financings were done when zinc was $0.95/lb. Since then, zinc has fallen toward $0.80/lb. That affects Donner’s ability to generate near-term cash and meet the payment schedule on Xstrata’s cash calls.

TGR: Donner has a royalty deal in place with Sandstorm Metals & Energy Ltd. (SND:TSX.V). Is that not sufficient to cover this shortfall?

SI: The deal with Sandstorm gave Donner $25M up front to pay for its share of capital costs at Bracemac-McLeod. In return, Sandstorm got a metal streaming agreement on Bracemac-McLeod’s copper, gold and silver production. As development went on, Sandstorm invested another $10M in exchange for additional streaming.

From Donner’s point of view, its key revenue driver now is zinc, because Sandstorm takes a lot of the value that comes out of the copper, gold and silver.

TGR: Finally, let’s touch on nickel. Nickel prices peaked near $50,000 per metric ton ($50K/Mt) in 2007 and are hovering at around $14K/Mt today. That is mostly due to nickel pig iron, a crude substitute for refined nickel, made from low-grade nickel laterite ore. Is there any relief in sight for nickel investors?

SI: Obviously, people are focused on the current spot price, which is $6.15/lb and dropping daily.

Pig iron has put a cap on the upside to the nickel price. The high prices in 2007 prompted a flood of nickel pig iron onto the market. At the time, a lot of the laterite ores being mined for pig iron were relatively high grade: 3–4+% nickel. Since then, that ore has been displaced by lower-grade ore: below 2% nickel, even below 1%. That increases the intrinsic cost of producing nickel from that ore.

Producing pig iron from laterite ore is energy intensive. Much of the processing happens in China, where power costs have gone up. When you couple lower-grade input feed with higher energy costs, the result is a higher cost base for pig iron production. Companies—and they are mostly small, mom-and-pop operations—whose start-up and capital costs are sunk, continue to make money at $6–7/lb nickel. But we do not expect to see any significant new nickel pig iron producers come onstream until nickel gets up to $10+/lb.

TGR: Yet, according to the International Nickel Study Group, the surplus of refined nickel at the end of April was close to 33 Kt and it forecasts a 90 Kt surplus this year. Do institutional investors have any appetite to bring more nickel projects into production?

SI: In the near term, there is a lack of interest in the nickel space. It is probably the longest term base metal to get excited about.

The numbers to support nickel on a long-term basis start with China, which continues to build out infrastructure. Historically speaking, the initial infrastructure in emerging economies is built on low-grade iron work. As a country’s infrastructure and general wealth increase on a per-capita basis, the amount of high-grade steel consumption increases on a per-capita basis. China is still building out. As it moves into higher standards of living, coupled with the size of the population, you can make a bullish case for significantly higher nickel demand. The same will happen in India a decade or two later.

TGR: Do you follow any nickel stories?

SI: The only name on our coverage list is Royal Nickel Corp. (RNX:TSX), a story that fits that long-term thesis. It is a very large sulphide deposit in Québec’s Abitibi greenstone belt, directly adjacent to the key infrastructure. This is the kind of asset that would attract a major player looking to secure a long-term nickel supply spanning multiple commodity price cycles.

There are three basic sources of nickel globally. Sulphide is the most traditional, and is our favorite. A nickel concentrate is made and shipped to a smelter to produce finished nickel. The second is laterite ore. Here, weathered sulphide material is mined, essentially in the form of semi-consolidated dirt. There are a lot of processing challenges, capital costs and risks associated with these projects. Most laterite deposits in the last 20 years have had high capital cost escalations and technical problems. We see these as high risk and generally avoid them. The third one is pig iron, which we already talked about.

TGR: The Chinese are mining nickel in Québec. Are they a potential suitor for Royal Nickel?

SI: Royal Nickel has a memorandum of understanding in place with Tsingshan Holding Group Co. Ltd.

Royal Nickel can produce very high-grade nickel concentrate, on the order of 29%, compared to less than 20% at most other nickel sulphide projects. Technical work shows that you can feed that concentrate directly into the steel mill without a refining process, which has caught the Chinese group’s interest.

In addition, Royal Nickel just finished a feasibility study. It will be the foundation for discussing the economics and how to move forward. Management has made clear its interest in selling a 30+% project interest to a strategic partner to help finance the project.

TGR: What is your target on Royal Nickel?

SI: It is $0.75/share.

TGR: Any parting thoughts, Stefan?

SI: We think zinc is a very interesting thesis in the next 12 months.

It is important to do your homework. Look for good projects in safe jurisdictions, led by good management teams. All three of these ingredients are essential, especially given the market’s negative sentiment right now. Companies that require near-term financing will be challenged.

TGR: Stefan, we appreciate your insights.

Stefan Ioannou has spent the last seven years as a mining analyst covering mid-cap base metal companies at Haywood Securities. Prior to joining Haywood, he worked with a number of exploration and mining companies, as well as government agencies as a field geologist in Nevada and throughout the Canadian Shield in both the gold and base metal sectors.

Want to read more 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 Streetwise Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:

1) Brian Sylvester conducted this interview for The Gold Report and provides services to The Gold Reportas an independent contractor. He or his 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: Trevali Mining Corp., Foran Mining Corp. and Royal Nickel Corp. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.

3) Stefan Ioannou: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. 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: Donner Metals Ltd. and Trevali Resources Corp. 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) As of the end of the month immediately preceding this publication either Haywood Securities, Inc., one of its subsidiaries, its officers or directors beneficially owned 1% or more of Donner Metals Ltd.

5) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.

6) 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.

7) 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 © 2013 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]

 

Central Bank News Link List – Jul 2, 2013: Chile’s central bank cuts growth forecast and signals rate cuts

By www.CentralBankNews.info Here’s today’s Central Bank News’ link list, click through if you missed the previous link list. The list comprises news about central banks that is not covered by Central Bank News. The list is updated during the day with the latest developments so readers don’t miss any important news.

The Great “End of America” Debate (Part 1)

By WallStreetDaily.com

The end is nigh for America!

Blame it on runaway debt and deficits, or a reckless Fed. It doesn’t matter – our country is doomed!

At least, that’s what we’ve been hearing for years. Yet here we are, still chugging right along.

So is our country truly on the precipice of another historic meltdown? Or could we actually be poised for a rebirth?

Well, you can find out by spending the next eight minutes or so listening to my exclusive interview with Ruchir Sharma, Morgan Stanley’s (MS) Head of Emerging Markets and author of the international bestseller, Breakout Nations.

He oversees more than $25 billion in investments and spends at least one week out of every month evaluating opportunities in a foreign country. In turn, it’s fair to say that he’s uniquely qualified to assess how America stacks up with the rest of the world.

I promise, his assessment will shock many of you. But that’s not the only reason to listen in.

During our conversation, Sharma also reveals…

  • Another economic powerhouse that’s teetering on the brink of a credit crisis. He says that it’s “really the big story in the marketplace these days.”
  • The single most important thing to remember when investing in emerging markets.
  • Whether or not the Chinese consumer can reenergize the country’s decelerating GDP growth rate.
  • And, last but not least, we discuss the nasty correction underway in the commodity sector. Is it just a momentary hiccup in the highly touted “Commodity Supercycle”? Or is it a precursor of worse times ahead?

To find out, all you have to do is click on the image below. Or you can read the transcript here.

The Great “End of America” Debate (Part 1)

Ahead of the tape,

Louis Basenese

P.S. Stay tuned for next Tuesday, when we’ll continue this debate with an exclusive interview with a Wall Street and Washington, D.C. insider. He’s the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, and one of the early partners of The Blackstone Group (BX).

The post The Great “End of America” Debate (Part 1) appeared first on  | Wall Street Daily.

Article By WallStreetDaily.com

Original Article: The Great “End of America” Debate (Part 1)

Australia holds rate, sees “some scope” for cut if needed

By www.CentralBankNews.info     Australia’s central bank held its cash rate steady at 2.75 percent but said the outlook for inflation “may provide some scope for further easing, should that be required to support demand.”
    The rate guidance by The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) compares with its statement from June when it saw “scope for further easing,” indicating that it sees slightly less room to cut rates further as it omitted the word “some.”
    The RBA, which has cut its policy rate by 25 basis points this year and by a total of 200 points since October 2011, noted that the Australian dollar had depreciated by around 10 percent since early April, but added that it remains “at a high level” and it is “possible that the exchange rate will depreciate further over time, which would help to foster a rebalancing of growth in the economy.”
    The Australian dollar rose above parity to the U.S. dollar at the start of 2011 and remained there most of the time until the RBA’s rate cut in early May when it started dropping. Since the start of this year the Australian dollar has depreciated by some 11 percent to the U.S. dollar, trading at 0.92 today.
    The RBA said the easier financial conditions that are now in place “will contribute to a strengthening of growth over time,” with signs of increased demand for finance by households though the pace of borrowing had remained relatively subdued.
    Economic growth in Australia has been below trend and the RBA expects this to continue in the near term as the economy adjusts to lower levels of mining investment.
    Australia’s Gross Domestic Product rose by 0.6 percent in the first quarter from the previous quarter, for a 2.5 percent annual rise, down from 3.1 percent in the fourth quarter.
    The inflation rate rose slightly to 2.5 percent in the first quarter from 2.2 percent in the previous quarter but the RBA said it was still consistent with its 2-3 percent target “an is expected to remain so over the next one to two years, notwithstanding the effects of the recent depreciation of the exchange rate.”
    The RBA added that financial conditions remain very accommodative globally but the “reassessment by the market of the outlook for monetary policy in the United States has seen a noticeable rise in sovereign bond yields from exceptionally low levels.”

    www.CentralBankNews.info
 

Are the Credit Rating Agencies at it Again?

By MoneyMorning.com.au

Australia’s Aaa ratings are based on the country’s very high economic resiliency, very high government financial strength, and very low susceptibility to event risk.
 – Moody’s Investors Services

Our old pal, Sound Money, Sound Investments editor, Greg Canavan might have something to say about ‘event risk.

Arguably Australia has one of the biggest potential ‘event risks‘ on its doorstep – China.

And yet China barely warrants a mention in Moody’s report on the Australian economy. In fact, Moody’s mentions China just three times in the 16-page, 6,444 word report.

Of course, as history tells you, you can take anything the credit agencies say on risk with a pinch of salt, as we’ll show you today…

Let’s step back in time to 21 September 2006, in New York. We can picture it; a warm but crisp early autumn day.

We can picture bright sunshine with barely a cloud in the sky. We can see the warm breath seeping out into the cold air as Manhattanites march single-mindedly to their sky-high office buildings.

On this particular morning we imagine the Moodys analyst sat at a desk thumbing through a file. The file has the following note on the cover: ‘IndyMac INABS 2006-D’.

The analyst reviews the file. This would be easy. He or she has reviewed and rated hundreds, perhaps thousands of these securities investments.

Barely audibly the analyst mumbles ‘Aaa’ and casts the file into the out tray.

Mixing the Good with the Bad

It’s hard to blame the analyst. All these securities are the same. Each one comprises a number of different assets.

The best quality assets get an Aaa rating. So do the next four assets – these are the cream of the crop.

The next asset gets a slightly lower credit rating – Aa1. The next slightly lower than that – Aa2. This goes on until the analyst reaches the lowest quality asset in the security. It gets a Ba2 rating.

But all up, the security is rated Aaa – Moodys’ top rating.

The investment banks structure securities like this for a number of reasons. The main reason is that on their own there would be little demand for the higher risk loans in the investment markets.

Or if there were demand investors would want a higher interest rate that the borrower may not be willing or able to pay.

The second reason is that the banks can write a bunch of junk loans knowing that as long as they package it with ‘good’ stuff they can flog it to investors. The more loans, the more deals…and more commissions.

So, what was or is ‘IndyMac INABS 2006-D’?

You’ve probably guessed. But if you haven’t, what we’ve just described is a collateralised subprime mortgage deal.

The way these securities worked is that the banks figured only a small percentage of the higher risk assets would default and would be more than offset by the loan interest charged on all the other loan assets in the security.

That’s the theory anyway. That’s how things worked in September 2006…that was just about the time the US housing market began to crumble.

They Didn’t Bank on This ‘Event Risk’

But as Moodys noted in its original rating decision on 21 September 2006:

The ratings are based primarily on the credit quality of the loans, and on the protection from subordination, overcollateralization, excess spread and an interest rate swap agreement provided by Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc. Moodys expects collateral losses to range from 5.35% to 5.85%.

If the reference to subprime loans doesn’t give the game away to how things turned out, then the reference to Bear Stearns should. Bear Stearns went bust in 2007.

So how did things turn out? Moodys gave this security (along with thousands of others) a top rating because, well, things couldn’t possibly go wrong. There was no ‘event risk’ on the horizon.

To cut a long story short, as you know, there was an ‘event risk’. It began with the collapse of Bear Stearns in 2007 and reached a climax in late 2008 when the entire global financial system looked set to fail.

As a result, the securities top-rated by Moodys with forecast losses of only 5.35% to 5.85%, suddenly became untradeable. Nobody wanted them.

And it turns out the ‘event risk’ that Moodys had missed resulted in much bigger than expected losses for the IndyMac INABS 2006-D.

The Australian Economy’s Biggest Danger

According to the latest statement, of the original USD$928 million face value, the security has realised losses of USD$171 million. Ouch! You do the maths on that.

Of course, it’s not all over for investors in this security. It still holds about one-third of its original assets, on which it’s still earning interest from mortgage repayments.

But even so, investors still won’t get back the original face value of the security. And most likely the original investors sold out long ago for even bigger losses.

In short, as confident as we are of the stock market grinding higher over the next two years, don’t fall for the idea that everything is fine for the world economy.

When Moodys tells you they don’t see any ‘event risk’ for Australia, don’t trust them. Australia has one of the biggest ‘event risks’ of all time on our doorstep – China.

If you want to successfully make (and save) money over the next two years, you need to understand the risks before you make educated bets on the market.

You need to punt on stocks (we like dividend payers and speculative growth stocks) but you also need a strategy to protect your wealth if things don’t go to plan.

Where do you start? We suggest checking out Greg Canavan’s latest timely analysis here.

Cheers,
Kris


From the Port Phillip Publishing Library

Special Report: Just What are ‘Turbo Cap’ Stocks?

Daily Reckoning: How the Power of Tweets Saved Tesla Motors

Money Morning: Don’t Get Caught in the Market Crossfire

Pursuit of Happiness: Is Technology the Most Exciting Industry in the World?

Australian Small-Cap Investigator:
How to Make Big Money from Small-Cap Stocks

EURUSD stays in a trading range between 1.2985 and 1.3102

EURUSD stays in a trading range between 1.2985 and 1.3102. Key resistance is at 1.3102, as long as this level holds, the price action in the range could be treated as consolidation of the downtrend from 1.3415, one more fall to 1.2900 area is still possible after consolidation. On the upside, a break above 1.3102 resistance could signal completion of the downtrend from 1.3415, then the following upward movement could bring price back towards 1.3600.

eurusd

Forex Signals

Why Economic Models Have Gone Out of the Window

By MoneyMorning.com.au

I had a good economics teacher at school, so I went on to study the subject at university – but by the end of the first year I was lost. Gone were conversations about how people as a group might or might not behave in any given situation and the stories of the emotions behind the graphs; in their place were endless lessons on econometrics and statistics backed up with increasingly complicated graphs and equations.

This stuff is pretty important – there’s no point in being an economist if you can’t manipulate statistics and, of course, an excellent grounding in mathematics is vital in every area of life. But it’s also only half the story. Economics is as much about behaviour as numbers, and economic models of all sorts can be destroyed by changes in the way people behave – as we have discovered in the past few years.

Andrew Smithers, of Smithers & Co, is good on this. He makes the point, for instance, that we have so changed the incentives for senior management over the last few decades that their behaviour no longer fits with the traditional modelling of corporate behaviour. They are hopelessly short-term, not very nice to their staff and devoted to the manipulation of the value of their options.

You might once have expected something like quantitative easing (QE) to encourage companies to borrow cheaply to invest; certainly, that’s what central bankers hoped it would achieve. But instead it just encourages them to push up earnings per share by borrowing to buy back shares, something that then holds up the stock market at levels that make no real sense. Again, a change in behaviour – that can’t be easily input into models – suggests it isn’t so easy.

Demographics and private debt levels can do this too. There was a time when cutting interest rates automatically made people spend more. But if large parts of the population are past peak spending age and the rest already spend their evenings staring blankly at their credit card statements, it just can’t. People change faster than economic models – which is why the models don’t always work very well.

The same goes for financial models. History is littered with the wreckage of black box hedge fund strategies. This week brought us a few more. Particular mention must go to Cantab Capital Partners; its main fund rose 15% last year, but has reportedly lost 14% this month alone. Its excuse is that ‘it’s unusual for one to see a sell-off in risk assets and a sell-off in bonds at the same time‘. That’s true – it is unusual. But it wasn’t entirely unexpected. If prices in the bond markets are artificially high thanks to the existence of the central banks as the biggest buyers of debt, why should other asset prices move in the same way relative to them as they have in the past?

Look at the point on buybacks above and you can see why rising bond yields (falling bond prices) might hit equity prices: fewer cheap loans mean fewer buybacks pushing markets up. People kill economic models. If only Mr Kirk (the founder of Cantab) had been more familiar with Mr Smithers.

Investing has always been tricky, but at least in the past there was a straightforward basis to it. You figured out roughly what you thought a company or a sector’s earnings were likely to be and then made a stab at guessing whether those earnings were reflected in its price. There were derivatives of this, of course – you might also spend some time guessing what other people thought earnings might be so you could buy or sell before they did (the economists among you will recognise this as Keynes’s ‘beauty parade’ theory of markets).

But now to get things right in the short term, we have to second-guess the big central banks. Then we have to second-, third- and fourth-guess other people’s guesses on the central banks. I have a tiny bit more sympathy than usual for the losses of professional investors in this world of model failure.

But it still seems to me that the best thing for us ordinary investors to do is just to step back, make a few long-term assumptions and look at long-term valuations. The former probably means behaving as though the bond bubble is over and inflation is the end game, while the latter at the very least means avoiding the US stock market. It currently trades on a cyclically-adjusted price/earnings ratio of 23 times which, as Peter Bennett at Walker Crips points out, is ‘historically a straight sell‘.

My own portfolio is currently in sensible investment trusts and cash, so I’m not changing it before the summer. However, I can’t go on holiday without mentioning the free-falling gold price. Gold isn’t an investment in the way that it was when it was so gloriously underpriced a decade ago, and it is worth remembering that it hates rising interest rates. But it is still something you should hold as insurance. So falls in its price shouldn’t bother you much.

Think of your car insurance. Let’s say you pay £500 a year for it. Six months into the year, you haven’t crashed. Your insurance remains unused. You are effectively down £250. Do you mind? You might be mildly irritated, but you also know that should you back into another car while parking in a frantic effort to arrive at the end-of-term play in time, you’ll get value. So it is with gold. If there was no risk at all of another major financial crisis in our investing lifetimes, you’d want to sell it. But now? When the only thing keeping crisis at bay is an artificial boom in asset prices caused by experimental central bank policies? You don’t.

Merryn Somerset Webb
Contributing Editor, Money Morning

This article first appeared in the Financial Times and Money Week on 1 July, 2013

Join Money Morning on Google+

From the Archives…

Why Your Financial Advisor Won’t Like This Investment Advice…
28-06-2013 –  Kris Sayce

Is This Your Last Chance to Sell Before the Stock Market Sinks?
27-06-2013 – Murray Dawes

Is This the Ultimate Contrarian Opportunity…Or a Death Wish?
26-06-2013 – Dr Alex Cowie

How Central Bank Zombies Control the Stock Market
25-06-2013 – Dr Alex Cowie

Why The ‘Asia-Zone’ Crisis Makes Australian Stocks a Buy…
24-06-2013 – Kris Sayce

They Just Rang A Bell On Gold – The Lows Are In!

They Just Rang A Bell On Gold-The Lows Are In!

By David A. Banister – www.markettrendforecast.com

As they say on Wall Street, “They don’t ring bells at the top” and for sure they usually don’t give you a phone call at the bottom either. Many heads have rolled trying to call this recent near 2 year downdraft in Gold in terms of bottom callers, me included. I thought we would never get much below 1440 or so from the 1923 highs, but alas we all know we did.

What makes me think that last week put in the final Gold low for the bear cycle? Too many things to mention, but based on the work I do enough to give me some chutzpah to make this call now. The 1180’s are very close to a classic ABC 61.8% Fibonacci retracement of the prior 34 month bull cycle. That cycle ran from October 2008 to August 2011 with a rally from $681 to $1900’s area. The most recent 21 plus month decline dropped right into the 61% pivot retracement of that entire move, and over a Fibonacci 21 month period as well! Human behavior does repeat over and over again, and as we all know in hindsight at the tops everyone is bullish and at the bottoms everyone is bearish.

I think it’s pretty much as simple as that. Investors get overly optimistic and exuberant in all kinds of asset classes and finally at the highs everyone believes the rally can only go on and on forever. At the opposite near the bottoms nearly everyone is calling for lower prices and further catastrophe ahead. Stocks in the sector are priced for near bankruptcy. Newsletter writers are universally bearish, and the small trader has a big short position. Only a few weeks ago the Bullish Percentile index measurement on the Gold Stock Index was at 0! That means nobody was bullish on the Gold stocks by the measure that is used. We quickly had an 8% rally in the index after that reading, then in the last few weeks we came all the way back down again to even lower levels!

If you watched the action last Thursday as Gold was melting down below $1200 a curious thing happened. The gold miners were ignoring the move and going green! On Friday, as Gold reversed to 1234 they went ballistic with one of my favorite miners going up 16% on Friday alone on the highest volume in 5 years! Those are the signals I’ve been waiting for to call the capitulation lows. My guess is some money managers are front running the coming 3rd quarter rotation they see in Gold and Gold Miners, Copper, Coal, and other commodity stocks.

So below is my basic GLD ETF multiyear chart using very simple monthly views to see the big picture. You can see a classic ABC pattern of bear market correction and now a near 61.8% perfect Fibonacci retracement of the prior leg up. I’d say enough is enough, pick your spots and start buying.

629 gold

By David A. Banister – www.markettrendforecast.com

 

Romania cuts rate to boost economy, sees lower inflation

By www.CentralBankNews.info     Romania’s central bank cut its policy rate by 25 basis points to 5.0 percent, as expected, to boost economic activity and ensure medium-term price stability.
    It is the first rate cut this year by the National Bank of Romania (NBR), which previously cut its rate in March 2012. The central bank also cut the rate on its Lombard facility by 25 basis points to 8.0 percent and the deposit rate to 2.0 percent from 2.25 percent.
    The NBP expects inflation to ease further in July and hit the target range in September/October. The NBR targets inflation of 2.5 percent, plus/minus 1.0 percentage point.
   “The decisions convey a positive signal to the banking system, the business community and households, by prompting a gradually downward trend in domestic currency lending costs and fostering economic activity,” the NBR said.
    “Such a monetary policy configuration is further aimed at achieving the objective of ensuring medium-term price stability while preserving financial stability and cushioning the adverse impact of domestic and external factors on the recovery of the Romanian economy.”
    The central bank added that the major risks to the short-term inflation outlook was the volatility of capital flows, given the “current global picture” and structural rigidities in Romania’s economy.

    The central bank said the negative output gap in the economy had persisted and annual consumer price inflation rose marginally to 5.32 percent in May from 5.25 percent in March.
    Based on the EU-harmonised inflation measure, May inflation was 4.38 percent, down from 4.45 percent in March.
    Romania’s Gross Domestic Product rose to an annual 2.2 percent in the first quarter from 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 due to higher manufacturing output.
   The central banks said the leu currency had posted wider wings due to the “heightened volatility of investors’ risk appetite, as well as to the persistence of uncertainty surrounding economic activity in Europe and elsewhere.”
 
    www.CentralBankNews.info

BlackBerry After the Rout: Worth a Look?

By The Sizemore Letter

BlackBerry ($BBRY) shares fell off a cliff on Friday morning, down more than 25% after 1st quarter earnings were released, and through mid-morning on Monday they hadn’t recovered much.  It appears that the “make or break” BB10 operating system is looking like more of a break than a make.

BlackBerry sold 2.7 million BB10 devices in the quarter…which was about a million short of Wall Street estimates.  And BB10 phones made up only 40% of total phone sales…meaning that the company is still having to lean heavily on its older, lower-margin models to keep volumes up.

When a stock loses a quarter of its value in one day, it’s tempting to go bargain hunting.  After all, this is a company with half of its market cap in cash trading for just 57% of book value…a book value that may be understated based on the value of BlackBerry’s patent portfolio.  And after a rout like this, surely all of the bad news is already priced in, right?

If you want to play a dead-cat bounce here, be my guest.  But view this for what it is: a short-term contrarian trade and not an investment.

Let’s step back and consider BlackBerry’s plight.  The company has sunk into that nightmare scenario of being “stuck in the middle.”  Its high-end phones are not selling well vs. Apple’s ($AAPL) iPhone or the top-line Samsung Galaxy line running Google’s ($GOOG) Android operating system.  And at the low end, it is getting out-priced in both developed and emerging markets by a flood of cheap, entry-level Android devices.

As for the enterprise market—an area I once considered a “moat” for BlackBerry—BlackBerry’s device management still remains one of the best options.  But this clearly hasn’t arrested the decline of handset sales, and the company’s overall subscriber base is falling.  Meanwhile, government and corporate clients who once valued the security of BlackBerry’s network have over the past five years of subpar product offerings found ways to accommodate iPhones and Androids.

Sadly, BlackBerry’s network infrastructure—once the envy of the mobile world—has now arguably become as much of a liability as an asset.  Remember that week in 2011, when BlackBerry’s network went down? That was a turning point for many buyers for whom the “reliability” of the network was a selling point.  By today, BlackBerry has sunk so far in terms of relevance, a major service outage earlier this year barely made the news.

So, BlackBerry’s captive enterprise customer base continues to shrink even while its handsets are bombing with the general public.  This would be a tough situation for any company, let alone one in a fast-changing industry dominated by fickle consumers.  And when you consider that they are fighting for third place with a newly-assertive Microsoft ($MSFT)—one of the biggest and best-capitalized companies in the world –BlackBerry’s chances of success get even slimmer.  Microsoft, though still a small player in mobile, can offer a phone that complements its ubiquitous Windows PC operating system and the expanding Microsoft ecosystem.  Microsoft can also afford to throw money at its mobile platform until it gets traction…even if it takes years.  BlackBerry cannot.

This is all a long way of saying that, while appearing cheap on paper, BlackBerry is not an attractive investment.  It is a value trap that gets weaker with each passing quarter.

At some point, BlackBerry would be worth buying for its cash and patents alone.  At, say, $5-$6 per share, a corporate raider could potentially buy the company, chop it up, and sell it for spare parts at a handsome profit—assuming Canadian regulators let that happen.  Or, a larger tech company could buy BlackBerry and absorb it.

But at today’s price, investors face the prospect of watching management destroy more value trying to resurrect a company that is past the point of fixing.

If you’re a short-term trader, you can try your luck at playing a dead cat bounce.  But longer-term investors should stay away.

Sizemore Capital is long MSFT.