RSS

Blog

Risk and Uncertainty – Making the Case for Alternatives

Perhaps at no other time in modern history has there been so much confusion and uncertainty for the typical investor. In just the last 10 years there have been bubbles, crashes, recoveries, and run-ups in a number of markets. We have created billions of dollars via Quantitative Easing, kept interest rates at all-time lows, and managed to stave off inflation.


Make no mistake, we are in an all-new economic and investing environment where the stakes are high and there are no sure paths to victory. There is a clear abundance of risk across almost all conventional assets right now with very little room for maneuvering. Even the so-called experts can't seem to make sense of it. So if there's ever been a time to seriously explore new assets and non-correlated alternatives… this is it.


Let's explore some of the risks and uncertainties facing traditional investments. Take a look at the Fed Funds rate:



Rates are at all time lows. Putting your money in a CD or savings account may be low risk in the sense that your principal is protected, but your gains are minimal at best assuming inflation stays around 1.5%. If inflation runs higher than expected, or is actually higher than the CPI-based data suggests, you are guaranteeing yourself a small loss with zero upside opportunity.


Rates this low also present a significant risk to owning precious metals and bonds. As we all know, an increase in rates spells trouble for bonds. When yields (interest rates) go up, prices go down. Assuming The Fed begins to raise rates later this year as Janet Yellen indicated in last week's Congressional testimony, you can expect to take a hit on bonds. Granted, you can minimize your losses by moving from longer to shorter dated bonds, but they are still losses. The only way to avoid this would be to hold the bonds to maturity, but does that make the most sense with the returns being offered?


Less obvious is the risk to owning metals. However, the risk is very real, real enough that I do not feel comfortable recommending gold or silver to any of my clients as an investment right now. I broke this process down in my previous entry: Gold and Interest Rates ... What's the Big Deal?


Whether you believe Janet Yellen and The Fed or not, is irrelevant. There is only one direction rates can go from here – and that is up. Do not buy into the argument that the United States government will not be able to service the national debt at an increased rate. One of the key stipulations of The Fed raising rates will be continued GDP growth. Growing the size of the economy increases the government's tax revenue and will offset any increased debt payments.


This happened once before as the United States had massive debt after World War II, over 100% of GPD, not too different from today. Rates were around 1% in 1945 and gradually rose over time. Because the economy was growing right alongside rising interest rates, (and interest payments on debt), those increased costs were easily managed.



So we see the dangers with owning bonds and precious metals because of the low-rate environment we're in. We also see the lack of performance in CDs, savings, etc. What about equities though?


The answer isn't so straightforward. One of the main arguments right now is that monetary policy was designed from the ground up to support the market. It has been the only game in town as returns in other traditional assets were simply not strong enough to warrant investment. This money has flowed to the stock market – and what goes up must come down.


On the other hand, we see the debt problems in Greece – and basically the entirety of southern Europe. China has massive debt issues and a troubled market. There are good reasons for investment capital to leave other currencies and come running to the U.S. markets – but with how interconnected economies are and the prevalence of multinational companies there may be more risk in the U.S. markets than history would suggest.


Furthermore, investors are panic-prone. Take the Ebola crisis for example. Was it really that big of a deal? No, but we can see how it affected the market!



What will happen if Greece defaults and leaves the Euro? What if Spain, Cypress, Portugal, and Ireland want the next round of handouts? What if Germany bails on the Eurozone and currency collapses? Sure these are “ifs” – but really, how unlikely is it that any of those can't happen? What about the impact to the U.S. markets? Would the reaction be positive or negative?


I can't answer that question, but I can say that it has me nervous. I don't even know many people that aren't nervous about their positions in the market and when you take that and combine it with the risks in precious metals and bonds… it doesn't leave you with a lot of options. When you're in a position of uncertainty about where and how you can avoid these risks to find a positive return.


Wise investors understand these risks and uncertainties, and they can make adjustments based on that understanding to best position their family for the future. Right now is the perfect time to begin incorporating alternative strategies and non-correlated assets into your mix of investments as the outlook for so many traditional markets is very murky.


And while I am not an expert in every alternative, I do have a deep understanding in how many of these markets work – and I am a strong believer in being creative and coloring outside the lines, so-to-speak, with your portfolio. I am happy to share any thoughts or insight I may have on using various alternatives as a means of diversification. Please feel free to reach out to me with your questions.

Greece, China, Oil, and US Short Term Rates

This is the time to be proactive and not reactive


Don't buy into the fear in the news! Many of these fears are being misconstrued and may actually result in a positive impact on the U.S. economy over the upcoming months. Anxiety about Greece's debt is causing many investors to make quick decisions based on fear. However, this Euro zone crisis could actually have a positive effect on the U.S. dollar. The fear that oil prices could plummet like they did at the end of 2014 is causing many investors to panic. The reality is that a repeat of last year's oil price drops in September would be more devastating to Russia, the Middle East, and the South American countries. This would ultimately provide further support for the U.S. economy. Investors need to wake up! The Federal Reserve is looking to possibly raise Short Term Interest Rates this fall which means they believe the economy is improving. You can wait, watch, and hope you can react fast enough to these changes to cut your losses – or you can do something beforehand. Do your research and get out ahead of what is coming. Let me provide some perspective on these two current crises to give you a direction so you can do further research to protect yourself.


Let's start with Greece. Everyone looks at a Greece default/exit and thinks this will crush European economies and by extension the U.S. economy. Let's break this down a little further to understand what could happen. If Greece defaults and exits the Euro Zone what can we expect? Remember Greece would only exit the Euro Zone not the European Union. This means that the 17 countries in the Euro Zone would take the largest initial hit to the markets. The other 10 countries in the European Union would take a smaller hit. However, in the long run Europe needs to move toward fiscal responsibility to have a chance for a solid recovery. The U.S. markets could experience some short term volatility but ultimately should not be affected in the long run because of the low exposure the U.S. economy has on these markets. The big short and long term loser will probably be China. We are already seeing some signs in the Chinese markets. China exports over 30% of its GDP and half of that goes to Europe. Greece's exit could be the straw that brings down a heavily debt ridden Chinese economy. In contrast the U.S. economy is growing and is only 1/6th of China's exports. The economic debt problems in Greece, Europe, and China, far exceed that of the U.S. While U.S. markets will see some short term volatility, the entire U.S. economy will keep recovering with the big winner of course being the U.S. dollar.


Will a repeat of last fall's oil price drop, greatly affect the U.S. economy? Here is what you need to look for. Winter oil blends, politics, market share and innovation are setting a déjà vu moment for oil. The biggest global profit time for oil is when the U.S. is on its summer oil blends. If anyone is going to drop oil prices it would be when the U.S. moves to its winter oil blends on September 1st. Watch for a high level government official like Secretary of State Kerry to visit Saudi Arabia like he did last year on September 7, 2014. Three days after this meeting, oil started dropping until it went to the low $40's by January which had multiple effects. Russia's incursions into the Ukraine and its supply of weapons to ISIS took a serious hit as Russia had enough U.S. cash reserves to get through 2014, as 50% of Russia's economy is oil based.


Graph of World Liquid Fuels Production and Consumption Balance, 2009-2014


Other middle-east countries except Saudi Arabia would also take major hits along with several Central and South American countries such as Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, etc. Saudi Arabia can go lower in price as they have more U.S. cash reserves than anyone else. Saudi Arabia can grab other countries oil market shares, cut off funds and weapons to ISIS and slow U.S. oil production. The U.S., Europe, and China take small market hits but basically they are all getting oil cheaper which is a benefit to their economies. Again, like the Greece crisis this crisis has a greater effect on other countries which ultimately provides positive results for the U.S.


The Elephant in the world economy is the Federal Reserve and its pending short-term interest rate hikes. The question is when. There are two things holding back the U.S. economy; shortage of investment capital liquidity to U.S. private sector and Government anti-business regulations. The majority of U.S. states are busting anti-business state regulations but don't expect much from the Federal Government until January 2017. The big thing now is U.S. banks are sitting on 11 trillion in cash. With short term interest rates at basically zero, banks have no incentive to lend money for housing, start-up companies, or expanding companies. The question is whether the U.S. economy and Federal Government can take the lag in time between raising rates and the benefits that will follow. If they go too fast, too soon, or too much, the Fed could do more harm than good.


Graph of Historical Federal Funds Rate


September 17, 2015 could be a defining moment in the U.S. economy. This is the date that the Federal Reserve may change its zero interest-rate policy that it has had since December 2008. This would be a major shift in the economic recovery policy and would signify that the FED believes the U.S. economy is strong enough to handle such a change. When they raise the interest rate, expect market hits around the world and short term volatility in the U.S. market. The big loser is everyone who does not jump on the U.S. economy coat tails and ride it up as the U.S. moves from a slow to a medium recovery. This is the time to be proactive and not reactive.


Personally I think the Federal Reserve should have started raising rates a year ago to help the average person in the U.S. and the private sector. Instead they kept rates low and helped the rich, the markets, Europe, and the rest of the world. There is however, a point of diminishing returns to low rates. Europe hit that point in January and went into negative rates. The Federal Reserve does not want to get to that point because it leads to stagflation which Japan has experienced since the 1990's, Europe now, and China about to enter into it. It could be late in Q3 or Q4 of 2015, or in Q1 of 2016, but it is coming.


I hope that you have gained some other perspectives on these issues. Remember, don't buy into the doom and gloom articles and critics. Instead, take the time to do your research. To filter through the propaganda, misinformation, and agendas, research the author of the article on Wikipedia and look at the last paragraph which normally lists who the author's associations are. This will help you see if they have a bias or agenda. Red Flag articles have dozens of unsubstantiated facts that no one has time to verify. They are trying to overwhelm you with data. Completely ignore opinion articles that give no facts. This will leave you articles with only a couple of facts to verify. If you have any specific questions feel free to give me a call.

One final thought... Most of the doom and gloom authors and speakers have made millions of dollars doing this for over 20 years. So when coming across an article, it's always important to trust but verify.

Gold and Interest Rates ... What’s the Big Deal?

The buzz right now among most investors and virtually every economic commentator is on interest rates. It seems that at this point it's not a matter of if – but when – the Fed will begin raising rates with the majority sensing it may happen sometime between September, 2015 and Q1 2016. The last time the Fed raised rates was nearly 10 years ago in June of 2006. So needless to say, it's been a while since we've seen this shift in policy, and at this point there are a lot of guesses on how the economy and various markets will react.


Focusing in on the gold market specifically though, there are some very real risks that gold owners need to be aware of. Simply put, there are a number of indicators for gold, but one of the most compelling is the very strong negative relationship between the price of gold and real interest rates. It is widely recognized that rising real interest rates create a poor environment for gold, whereas falling real interest rates tend to push the price of gold up… let's look at why that is.


Gold is an expensive asset to hold. It offers no dividend and does not produce any interest. As such, in a higher real rate environment there is a high opportunity cost to holding the metal versus interest bearing assets such as CDs, bonds, etc. Conversely, when real interest rates are low (or even negative) investors see very limited returns (or real losses) on interest bearing assets giving a higher incentive to hold gold.


This impact is exacerbated as supply-demand shifts cause billions of dollars of both individual and institutional money to move in and out of metals as real rates change. Think about this logically. How likely are you to own a CD (or other interest bearing investment) when real interest rates are for example -2%? What about 1% or 6%? Obviously, you are more likely to own that CD performing at 6% and you would look to protect your capital another way if that CD was offering a real return of -2%.


Most investors view gold as a store of value, not too dissimilar from the idea of holding treasury bonds, CDs, etc as low-risk assets. Thus when real rates are rising we see money flow from gold into interest-bearing assets. When real rates are falling we see money flow from interest-bearing assets into gold.


This is a very strong indicator as to the direction in the price of gold. Understanding where real rates are going can aid you in buying gold at the right time – or protecting yourself by selling before a sharp decline in prices.


World Gold Council Chart


Source: Thomson Reuters Datastream, World Gold Council


Oftentimes people will say “But wait, gold was spiking in the late 1970s when interest rates were high and gold was falling in the 1980s when interest rates were low!” This is why we need to make the distinction between real and nominal interest rates. The nominal interest rate is the percentage of increase in money the borrower pays the lender. Suppose the bank lends you $100 at a 10% interest rate. When you pay back the $100 you're paying an additional $10 in interest. Simple, right? But this does not take into account the impact inflation has on the bank's return.


The real interest rate is adjusted for inflation. It measures the percentage increase in purchasing power the lender receives when the borrower repays the loan with interest after accounting for inflation. So continuing on with our example, let's suppose inflation is running at 7%, which essentially is a 7% loss in purchasing power. The bank is gaining a 10% increase in purchasing power from the interest it's being paid on the loan, but it is losing 7% purchasing power due to the cost of inflation. Therefore, creating the real interest rate, the bank is seeing a 3% (or $3) gain in real purchasing power on this $100 loan.


REAL INTEREST RATE = NOMINAL RATE – INFLATION


So yes, in the late 1970s nominal interest rates were high… but inflation was almost as high, and at times even higher! So if you have a nominal interest rate of 13% and inflation is running 14%, you have a negative real rate of 1%. With low (or negative) real rates gold tends to perform better, thus in the late 1970s we saw gold spike heavily.


During the 1980s nominal interest rates were falling, but the rate of inflation was falling even faster. This meant that even though nominal rates were coming down, real interest rates were actually rising. What happened to gold in the 1980s? Well, gold was $850/oz in January, 1980, and it dropped to $300/oz by 1985.


Indeed, one can make the argument that it was the low real interest rates of the mid-late 2000s that led to the price increase of gold, especially during 2009-2011. Economists like Paul Krugman have reiterated numerous times that gold was responding to changes in real interest rates – and not inflation alone.


Fred Chart



In fact, gold prices are down a lot. But it's also important to understand why they were high in the first place. Gold is not, in fact, a hedge against inflation. It's something people buy when real returns on alternative assets are low. The figure shows the price of gold versus the interest rate on inflation-protected bonds inverted, so that a falling real rate of interest is a rise on the chart. Gold went up as real interest rates turned negative, thanks to a depressed economy — an economy, by the way, that was deflation, rather than inflation-prone.


And as recovery has gathered strength, real rates have gone up and gold has gone down.”


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/recession-recovery-and-gold/


So where do we go from here? The last few years have seen gold trend down as nominal rates have stayed flat while inflation has fallen – meaning real rates have risen. The Fed has been telling us for over a year now that they are going to be raising interest rates soon. Assuming rates do increase and inflation stays steady, or raises at a level slower than the increase in nominal rates, real interest rates will continue to rise. This would suggest a continued decline in the price of gold.


I'm not saying owning gold right now is good or bad. Everyone has their own reasons for owning the metals, and what makes sense for me may not make sense for you. And there are certainly other contributing factors that influence the price; it is a volatile commodity after all. But for me, I am hesitant to invest in gold as a performing asset given the current economic environment and outlook on interest rates.

Gold ... a Solution to a Non-existent Problem

The Internet is full of apocalyptic stories about the US economy. If you believed everything you read you would think that the US dollar is about to be dethroned, our debt situation will get out of control, and hyperinflation will ensue. But as Adam Smith once said, "there is a great deal of ruin in a nation." What Smith meant is that economies can absorb quite a bit of punishment and keep on ticking. Here I'll explain how despite America's very real and serious problems, investors should be skeptical of get-rich-quick schemes suggesting that gold is a good hedge for the turmoil ahead.


Let's start with the national debt, which by one measure is as large as our GDP. If you look at the part of the debt actually held by the public, however, it's a bit over 70% of GDP, which is not unusual for a developed country. The budget deficit, which is the net increase in the debt over one year, has fallen to about 3% of GDP, also similar to many other countries. Even better for the Treasury, interest rates are relatively low and likely to rise only modestly. This means the cost of financing the national debt is not too burdensome, and long term rates will stay fairly low (about 2% to 4%) even as short term rates rise.


So we don't currently face a public debt crisis. On the other hand, the retirement of baby boomers will soon lead to large increases in spending on programs like Medicare and Social Security. So there are some long-term issues that need to be addressed, but in my view we will be able to adapt to the changing demographics through a combination of a higher retirement age, cost controls in healthcare, and slightly higher taxes.


I've emphasized the public debt issue because many of the other concerns are linked to this one key problem. For instance, those who claim that hyperinflation is on the way often suggest that the government will be forced to "monetize the debt" which means printing money to pay off government bonds. In the past, countries that have done this have often suffered from extremely high inflation. Printing money to pay for deficit spending largely explains the very high inflation suffered by places like Brazil and Argentina during the 1980s and the more recent hyperinflation in Zimbabwe.


There are lots of good reasons to doubt whether this scenario will play out in the US. First of all, investors in 30-year Treasury bonds obviously don't fear hyperinflation, or they wouldn't be willing to lend money for such a long time period at 3% interest rates. Even better, those low interest rates make a debt crisis much less likely as it means the national debt can be financed at an interest cost of roughly 2% of GDP.


Second, there are other developed countries that have dramatically worse public debt problems, measured as a share of GDP. In Japan public debt is about 240% GDP, or 140% in net terms, double the US level. Yet the Japanese continue to borrow money at very low interest rates, despite this large public debt. It would take many decades for the US to reach the debt situation of Japan today, and not only does Japan not have hyperinflation, they're even falling short of their 2% inflation target. China’s official public debt is not too large, but the Chinese government is widely seen as being responsible for a dramatic increase in debt issued by state-owned banks and local governments. Total debt in China is higher than in the US as a share of GDP.


What about Greece? This is the example that people cite who are concerned about excess debt. Greece actually has three problems that are interrelated: excess debt, no ability to control their own currency, and a deep depression that led to roughly 25% unemployment. This is nothing like the situation faced by the US, where unemployment is only 5.5% and trending downwards, and which has a Federal Reserve that can print money if we are in recession. Borrowers understand this distinction, which is why countries with their own central bank have not suffered from the sort of debt crises that hit the southern European countries.


Some people claim that the US is only able to borrow so much because the dollar is internationally recognized as a reserve currency. The fact that Treasury bonds are a preferred international reserve might allow Uncle Sam to borrow at slightly lower interest rates, but it’s only a slight advantage at best. For example, many other developed countries, such as Japan, Germany, and France, have large amounts of public debt outstanding and pay even lower interest rates than the United States. The Australian dollar is not widely used as an international reserve, and yet Australia has run trade deficits comparable to the US for many, many decades.


And even if the US dollar’s reserve status does lower borrowing costs, there is no plausible alternative out there for the foreseeable future. The euro is a mess and likely to be plagued by periodic crises due to the decision to impose a single currency on many vastly different countries. In the first decade of the euro’s existence there was a modest shift out of dollars, and the US dollar share of international reserves fell from the low 70s to just over 60%. But in recent years the euro has slipped back, and now comprises only 22% of international reserves, while the dollars share has leveled off at over 60%. No other currency is even close.


China is growing rapidly, but its currency is still heavily regulated through capital controls. Because foreigners cannot freely move Chinese yuan in and out of China, it is not a very attractive option as an international reserve currency. While China’s economic influence will gradually increase over time, the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency for many more decades. In some respects the US is like Britain in the late 1800s; it will still have the world’s most sophisticated financial markets even if China’s total GDP is larger.


If none of these apocalyptic theories of dollar collapse are true, then what does drive the international gold market? Gold tends to do well during periods of extreme economic stress, such as very high inflation or depression, and also during periods of very low real interest rates. (Real rates are the actual market interest rate (nominal) minus the rate of inflation.) This needs a bit of explanation, because some people might recall that gold did very well during the late 1970s when interest rates were high. Yes, but that was due to high inflation; real rates were not high. Investors bought gold as a hedge against risk of high inflation. When inflation is 13%/year, even a 15% nominal interest rate means only a 2% real interest rate. Even though nominal interest rates fell in the 1980s, inflation fell even faster, so real interest rates actually increased. That’s why gold prices fell after 1980. With the Fed now targeting inflation at 2%, it's unlikely that we'll see a repeat of the highly inflationary late 1970s.


A better argument is that low real interest rates help the gold market because they make other alternative investments such as bonds look less attractive. However, the US is gradually moving out of the depressed period of the early 2010s, and the Fed is expected to raise interest rates sometime in the second half of this year. In my view, the Fed rate increase might come a little bit later than some people expect, but I do think interest rates will gradually rise over the next few years, probably beginning in late 2015 or early 2016 at the latest. Higher interest rates take away one of the factors that underpinned the bull market in gold a few years ago. Indeed gold prices declined in 2013 on just a mention of the Fed’s intention to “taper” its purchases of bonds, aka “QE.”


Some commentators had falsely hyped a risk of high inflation due to quantitative easing and near-zero interest rates. In fact, there was never much risk that QE would lead to high inflation, because unlike previous hyperinflationary episodes, most of the new money went right into interest-bearing bank reserve accounts at the Fed. The Fed was not dumping trillions of dollars of paper money directly into circulation. Economic recovery and higher interest rates in the US will also diminish any latent fears of inflation. As interest rates rise the Fed will remove some of the excess reserves from circulation and immobilize the rest by paying a higher rate of interest on reserves. That policy did not even exist in the 1970s.


There might be some international factors pushing gold up in the short run, such as "Grexit”, which means Greece leaving the euro. Even if that occurs, and it's not at all clear that it will, any effects are likely to be short-lived. Greece is less than 2% of the Eurozone economy. Back at home there is a deadlock between the two political parties, which some believe is actually good for growth as it stops Congress and the President from greatly expanding the size of government. The world’s key central banks (Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan, People’s Bank of China) are all focused on maintaining steady growth with low inflation. As I indicated, the low interest rates have been a positive for gold, but that factor is already priced in. From this point forward rates are more likely to rise than fall.


Over the long run, stocks have done far better than gold. That doesn't mean gold is a bad investment; people care about more than just the average rate of return. Some people cite gold as a hedge against risk. But gold is itself a very risky asset, with a price that is highly volatile over time. To make an argument in favor of gold you need to show that gold does well when other assets are doing poorly. Someone worried about another Great Depression or double-digit inflation might be tempted to invest in gold as a hedge.


In my view, however, the problems of the 21st century will look different from those of the 20th century. Instead of depression or hyperinflation, the risk is economic stagnation—especially in countries with falling populations. And in that environment gold is not a particular good hedge. Stagnation will be less of a problem in the US due to factors like a growing population (immigration) and new technologies such as fracking which remove the previous fear that “peak oil” would inhibit economic growth. Again, gold does not do particularly well when there is low inflation and steady growth.


This is not to say that gold prices won't go higher over time; the long-term trend has obviously been positive, and there is growing demand in Asia. But don't forget that much of this merely reflects the effects of inflation. Gold prices are about 60 times higher than in 1900, but the cost of living has increased roughly 30-fold. So the increase in purchasing power of someone who invested in gold is about 2-fold, but that’s over 115 years! This is a much lower return than you would've seen in alternative investments.

Best collectible investment in 2014?

Best collectible investment in 2014? Written By Robert Frank | CNBC (*Excerpt from article) Full Article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102236877 Investing in high-end collectibles has been more lucrative than investing in stocks. Over the past 10 years, the Knight Frank Luxury Index (which tracks collectibles from cars and art to stamps, wine, coins and furniture) is up 182 percent while Dow Jones is up 62 percent. According to the report, art has been far more volatile over the past 10 years than gold, equities or real estate. Among collectibles, coins and furniture were the least volatile. Coins, in fact, have had a strong, if under appreciated, run recently. They returned 10 percent over the past 12 months and 90 percent over the past five years, ranking second as investments just behind cars. Best collectible investment in 2014? Written By Robert Frank | CNBC (*Excerpt from article) Full Article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102236877 Investing in high-end collectibles has been more lucrative than investing in stocks. Over the past 10 years, the Knight Frank Luxury Index (which tracks collectibles from cars and art to stamps, wine, coins and furniture) is up 182 percent while Dow Jones is up 62 percent. According to the report, art has been far more volatile over the past 10 years than gold, equities or real estate. Among collectibles, coins and furniture were the least volatile. Coins, in fact, have had a strong, if underappreciated, run recently. They returned 10 percent over the past 12 months and 90 percent over the past five years, ranking second as investments just behind cars.


Diversification and Investing in Rare Coins as a New Concept

One of the tenants of wise-investing – and indeed in one’s approach to life – is to “not put all your eggs in one basket.” The last few years give us a clear example of the dangers that exist when one’s portfolio is too heavily in concentrated in any one asset; look at the dramatic shift in prices seen in stocks, precious metals, and real estate! With the volatility and uncertainty currently displayed in many conventional investments, astute investors are actively looking for ways to protect themselves by diversifying their holdings and bringing in assets that offer non-correlation to their existing positions. “Non-correlating assets” has become the buzz term after the most recent recession. This is not a new concept, but after the financial crisis in 2007 investors have become cognizant of this. To many people the idea of investing in rare coins is a new concept, but it is, in fact, a time-tested method for preserving wealth generationally. Owning assets that are limited in supply and carry a high demand due to their intrinsic value is a strategy historically shown to protect and grow wealth. Many investors understand this strategy as they have seen it throughout their lives without realizing it. Imagine purchasing a Picasso, Monet, 1955 Ferrari, or downtown property in most urban areas 30 or 40 years ago! The new thing about investing in rare coins is that individuals now have a trusted ally in this space. RCW works directly with private investors by making portfolio recommendations, acting as a broker, and professionally managing an actively traded individual coin fund thereby allowing investors to be successful without needing an extensive knowledge of the coin world. The following article from the New York Times in 1981 explores rare coin investments that Yale University and Johns Hopkins University made at the time including ownership – and record setting sale – of a 1787 Brasher Doubloon. RCW later purchased the “Unique” Brasher Doubloon in January of 2005 for $2.99 million. It was sold to a Wall Street investment firm in December 2011 for $7.395 million – a 247% return over 7 years. As you will, even universities with sizable endowments and an unlimited number of investment options have recognized the importance of spreading money around as well as the benefits of owning rare coins. When an investor has the ability to “hold” something extremely rare – and highly desirable – off the market for a period of time they put themselves in a powerful position when they decide to sell. It does not matter how much money a buyer has if he cannot find a willing seller with the item. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/04/nyregion/yale-to-sell-brasher-doubloon-to-help-finance-university-s-new-library.html Don’t forget to put your “eggs” into multiple baskets. There is a great opportunity with rare coins; please contact one of our professionals to find out how bringing in this non-correlated asset can benefit your portfolio.


The Great Inflation

For God’s sake will people stop talking about inflation! Especially you inflation “truthers” who insist the BLS is lying and the actual inflation rate is between 7% and 10%. Those are the sorts of rates we averaged during the Great Inflation of 1965-81. For those too young to remember, a little history lesson: I was so excited when my dad came home with a red 1964 Oldsmobile 88. That was a car for upper middle class Americans. We were only middle class, but lived in an upper middle class house, because my dad was smart. The car was actually used, but almost new. He used to say a car lost 15% of it’s value the minute it was driven out the door of the dealer. Now when I go look for late model used cars the dealers ask more money than for a new model. The car was a 1964 Oldsmobile Jetstar I hardtop coupe (which sold for $3600). Now let’s flash forward to 1986. The Japanese cars are in style, and the first upper middle class Japanese car on the market is the Acura Legend, which sells for $22,500, more than a six-fold increase in 22 years. It was voted Car of the Year. That’s what high inflation feels like. Now let’s go up to the present. I’m not quite sure what model would be comparable to the Legend, but the Accord is made by the same company, and is slightly larger. ’m pretty sure the Accord LX is better than the Legend LS in almost every way you could imagine. It’s price? Brace yourself, because 28 years is even more than 22 years. Surely the price of cars has risen more than 6-fold in the last 28 years. I’d say around $200,000. Nope. OK, $100,000. No. $50,000? Actually it’s $22,105. (The link has all the specs.) Cars have gotten cheaper over the past 28 years. In nominal terms. (The CPI says car prices have risen about 35% in the past 28 years–I don’t believe that.) BTW, wages of factory workers rose from just over $2.50 an hour in 1964, to about $8.90 in 1986, to $20.68 today. Put away the tissue paper, the middle class is doing fine. Millennials have no idea how lucky they are that they can just go out and buy a Honda Accord, brand new. On a middle class income. That BMW you always dreamed of? Back in 1970 they looked like something made in a Soviet factory. PPS. Labor intensive service prices have risen much more than car prices, and high tech goods have fallen dramatically in price. There is no such thing as a “true rate of inflation,” but there’s also no reason to assume that inflation has not averaged 2% in recent decades. It’s just as reasonable as any other number the BLS might pull out of the air.


Monetary Theory: Base Money is just as Special as it Ever Was

Base money is just as special as it ever was Here’s Frances Coppola: Technology changes and post-crisis monetary policy are making financial assets and money indistinguishable. Central banks now need to work in partnership with fiscal authorities. Several economists at the Lindau meeting were severely critical of central banks’ conduct of monetary policy in the light of continuing depression in the US, Japan and much of Europe, and called for greater use of fiscal policy to bring about recovery. Among the most critical was Christopher Sims, who gave a trenchant presentation on “Inflation, Fear of Inflation and Public Debt”. He started by announcing the death of the quantity theory of money, MV=PY. Due to interest on reserves and near-zero interest rates, “money” can no longer be clearly distinguished from other financial assets. This is a fundamental point which requires some explanation. These days, nearly all forms of money bear interest, which makes them indistinguishable from interest-bearing assets. For Sims, the paying of interest on bank reserves, coupled with the decline of physical currency, all but eliminates the distinction between interest-bearing safe assets such as Treasury bills and what we traditionally call “money”. All assets can be regarded as “money” to a greater or lesser extent: the extent to which assets have “moneyness” is really a matter of liquidity. Sometimes words can get in the way of meaning. There is no point in arguing about what the term “money” really means, it obviously means different things to different people. But the term “base money” still has a pretty clear meaning; currency in circulation and bank deposits at the Fed. The Fed happens to have a complete monopoly on the (US$) monetary base. Prior to 2008 it could determine the supply of base money through OMOs and discount loans, and it could influence the demand for base money through changes in reserve requirements. After 2008, a 4th tool was added—interest on reserves, which also impacts the demand for base money. With these four tools the Fed can push the value of the dollar (in terms of euros) to anywhere between zero and infinity. That’s a lot of power. Nothing fundamental has changed, at least nothing relating to the validity of the quantity theory of money. A few other points: 1. The quantity theory of money has NOTHING to do with the equation of exchange. That equation is best viewed as a definition of velocity, nothing more. Definitions are not theories. 2. Currency is not “declining.” The currency stock is growing faster than GDP. It is also becoming a steadily larger share of the monetary aggregates


To QE or Not to QE, that is NOT the Question

We really ought to consider adopting a whole new monetary regime, NGDPLT. But what if the Fed refuses. What then? Then we are in the world of second best—QE and negative IOR. These are not good policies, but they are less bad than deep depressions or wasteful government spending. Here’s Simon Wren-Lewis: Perhaps these distortions are quite small. However this discussion illustrates a more serious problem with QE, which is that we still have no clear idea of its effectiveness, or indeed whether effects are linear, and what the best markets to operate in are. Announcements about QE clearly influence the market, but that could be because it is acting as a signalling device, as Michael Woodford has argued. Jim Hamilton is also sceptical. This strongly suggests that the uncertainty associated with the impact of QE is far greater than any uncertainty associated with either conventional monetary policy or fiscal policy. Thinking about it this way, I cannot see why some people insist that unconventional monetary policy is always preferable to fiscal policy. In a comment on a recent Nick Rowe post, Scott Sumner writes “My views is that once the central bank owns the entire stock of global assets, come back to me and we can talk about fiscal stimulus.” What this effectively means is that it is better for one arm of the state (the central bank) to create huge amounts of money to buy up large quantities of assets than to let another arm of the state (the Treasury) advance consumers rather less money to spend or save as they like. This preference just seems rather strange, but maybe Lenin would have approved! Of course I was joking, but I do seriously believe that Britain would be better off if it were able to acquire the entire stock of global wealth, at zero cost. That would be even more impressive than the “pink bits” on the map acquired under Queen Victoria. However if I had my way the Fed would have adopted a policy closer to that of the Reserve Bank of Australia (a monetary base of 4% of GDP), rather than the BOJ (a monetary base of more than 20% of GDP.) QE is both a sign of a failed policy, and at the same time (paradoxically) is better than not QE, combined with the same failed policy. Debates over monetary policy should not be debates over QE. The discussion should focus on what policy regime is optimal. An optimal policy regime would probably not involve any QE at all. And even if it did, it would still be less inefficient than fiscal stimulus. That was my point. (Remember that the “advance to consumers” must eventually be clawed back via distortionary taxes.) One way of stimulating demand when interest rates are stuck at zero is to promise a combination of higher than ideal inflation and higher than ideal output in the future. (This can be done either explicitly or implicitly by using some form of target in the nominal level of something like nominal GDP. For those not familiar with how this works, see here.) The cost of this policy is clear: higher than ideal future inflation and output. Once again, these costs can be worth it because of the severity of the current recession, which is why nominal rates are stuck at zero. Whether these costs are greater or less than the cost of changing government spending is debatable: a paper by Werning that I discussed here suggests optimal policy may involve both. Given that inflation doesn't matter at all, it is hardly possible for it to be above or below “ideal” levels. People who talk about the welfare costs of inflation are confusing inflation with NGDP growth. There are welfare costs of excessive long run NGDP growth, primarily excess taxation of nominal returns on capital. But inflation by itself does not have important welfare costs. The only possible inflation cost is the “menu costs” of price changes, but even that is unclear, given that nominal wage changes also involve menu costs. Thus a NGDPLT policy minimizes both the “welfare cost of inflation” and the problem of sub optimal output fluctuations. There is no trade-off. NGDPLT also reduces financial sector instability, relative to inflation targeting. It’s a win-win-win policy.


Why the U.S. dollar is still king.

Why the U.S. dollar is still king.


http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-the-u-s--dollar-is-still-king-214400187.html


A stronger dollar will cause a lot of volatility as investment capital will have other options then the standard and emerging markets. Non-correlated assets will be a great hedge during these volatile times.