hyperinflation

Jeet kune do investing IV: Venezuela

Posted by

1

The Globe & Mail presented a contemporary example of hyperinflation in article by Frank Jack Daniel:  “Trying to survive inflation? Ask Venezuelans“.  One point stood out to me:

Over the past 25 years, its citizens have developed all sorts of techniques for stretching their money and offsetting price rises. The main rule is get rid of cash fast.

“There’s no point leaving it in the bank, it’s better to invest. I bought this car for example,” said Caracas town hall official Jorge Juarez, who leaves home at 4 a.m. to beat the snarled traffic and uses his 2007 Fiat as a taxi after work.

Mr. Juarez is in many ways a typical middle-class Venezuelan. Through a mix of hard work and shrewdness he has kept up his family’s living standard even as his salary’s buying power shrinks.

Cars are a good investment in the Caribbean nation, where gasoline is subsidized to the point of being almost free and demand for vehicles far outstrips supply. As such, they increase in value as they age, faster than consumer prices.

Cars were seen as a good investment during hyperinflation in Chili, according to Gonzalo Lira, as I mentioned in an earlier post about  why I was buying Toyota RAV4 on 0% 36 month financing.  If gold is the measure of real estate, then real estate is suffering in price even while here in Canada it is experiencing phenomenal nominal gains.  This too accords with what happened in Chili according to Lira.

NB:  this post is part of a series on Jeet kune do investing, named after Bruce Lee’s martial arts, a style which is no style.

Hyperinflation is now here: Food prices rising

Posted by

0

The Globe and Mail says that 7% price increases in food could be on their way to Canada. What is to blame?

Bad crops around the world, oil trading for more than $100 (U.S.) a barrel and the economic recovery are driving prices higher.

Key words that do not appear in the article:  money base, quantitative easing, Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Bank, Bank of Canada, low interest rates, deficit spending.

The media’s general lack of awareness and insight into what ails the world leads me to believe that they are stuck on stupid.

My investment conclusion:

Short:  US dollar, all fiat currencies

Long:  Wine kits, beans

The price of a real estate in gold

Posted by

0

The Daily Reckoning has a chart showing that nominal gains in housing since 1913 has been in the neighborhood of 4.4% per annum.  Take the following example:

5561 Keith Ave Oakland, CA  1913- $5,750; 2011 ; $843,500.  = 14,595%

But what happens if we price the house in gold which was $18.93 per ounce in 1913 and $1435 today ?

5561 Keith Ave Oakland, CA  1913-303 oz gold ; 2011-587 oz gold = 93%

That’s on the high end of the scale.  Suppose we took another house on the low end:

28 Sanford St. Trenton NJ  1913-$3,600 ; 2011 $200,500 = 5469%

28 Sanford St. Trenton NJ  1913-190 oz gold ; 2011-140 oz gold = -26%

The nominal gain in the 28 Sanford house over 100 years was 5469%, but the real gain as measured in gold is -26%.  This is a remarkable consideration.  In my view, what it really means is that those investment advisors (e.g., James Altucher) who say that buying a house to live in is not an “investment” have been absolutely correct.  It is likely a relatively good store of value, as compared to the dollar, but even that really depends on the location of the house.  If a house is bought in a thriving industrial metropolis but ends up in a ghost town like Detroit, real estate is a very bad investment indeed, in the long run.

I would contend finally that home owners often win in this game because they have access to a low interest debt product, a mortgage.  The interest paid, the maintenance on the house, insurance and property tax, the main expenses of the house, are roughly equivalent to or less than what one would pay in rent.  The significant advantage of borrowing a large sum today and paying it off over the course of time is that the dollars borrowed are worth more than the dollars paid, because inflation, which has been more common than deflation over the last 100 years, benefits debtors.

But real estate as an investment gives the impression of phenomenal gains; but as measured in gold, these gains are far less dramatic.  However, in some cases, owning a home may protect the investor from robbery via inflation.

Just for fun, I’ll do the same with my house:

Price paid in 1997 = CDN $200,000 ; 2011 – CDN$400,000 = 100%

Price paid in 1997 = 404 oz gold; 2011 = 287 oz gold = -29%

I conclude that my house has had phenomenal nominal gains in the last 14 years, but no serious real gains in that same period.

Is it time to buy US? II: February deficit $223 billion

Posted by

5

I lamented in May 2010 that the US federal budget deficit was $83 billion, or about $8.90 per person per day.  Now the Washington Times (hat tip: the American Thinker) reports that the US government has posted its largest monthly deficit in history, $223 billion in February.  Now that means that the US government borrowed nearly $26 per person per day.  Clearly, the fundamentals that have caused the US dollar to depreciate against commodities is getting much worse not better:  the US government is borrowing three times as much money as what it was only 10 months ago.  This is proof that the debt death spiral is a reality in our times.

Now here is what has been happening:  (1) the US government borrows money but doesn’t find sufficient lenders whether domestic or foreign, so the Federal Reserve bank lends to them the remaining shortfall.  This is called quantitative easing because the money is created out of nothing.  But that is not the end of QE: for Bernanke is also buying old debt as it turns over and finds no new borrowers (see “Hyperinflation when?“).  QE greatly increases the amount of greenbacks that are in the money base:  view (chart below) and be afraid and weep.  (2) Next, commodities go up in price because too many dollars are chasing too few goods–food riots start happening in poorer countries.  (3) Then, consumer prices go up.  (4) Lastly, workers will get cost of living adjustments if indeed their employer can pay them at all.  In any case, the last thing to adjust to this whole mess is people’s take home pay.  But unfortunately, the adjustments will be too little too late because the next round of QE has already taken place and the spiral of hyperinflation has reached the next stage even before they receive their next pay cheque.

The newly elected Republican Congress?  They swept into power with Tea Party momentum.  But they can’t or rather they won’t fix anything.  Their puny little efforts to reduce the deficit are a joke.

My investment approach remains steady (current portfolio is up 88% above book) :

Short:  US dollar

Long:  Canadian oil & gas; Canadian gold mining; physical gold and silver (via Sprott Physical Gold Trust, Sprott Physical Silver Trust)

Finally, in my opinion, those who are telling people it is a great time to exchange your loonies for greenbacks and to go long on US stocks are really not doing their readers a favor; they seem ignorant of the fundamentals.  Yet even Warren Buffet’s famous and flippant advice about gold is little better.  What, pray-tell, Mr. Buffet, do you suggest to the American people regarding how they might protect themselves from this robbery?  Remember these words of Alan Greenspan (hat tip: Monty Pelerin):

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.

… the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.

Is it time to buy US? I. Studying the fundamentals

Posted by

4

Blogging has been a great help to DIY investors.  They can formulate their own strategies in writing, see what works, and share their knowledge with others.  Bloggers often have skin in the game; it might not be very much skin, as many are not rich people, but they are real investors and not like young journalists who don’t really have much hands on experience with trading or owning anything more elaborate than index or mutual funds in their RRSP accounts.

One of the clear reasons for thinking that many financial journalists are not particularly knowledgable about investing is that they are always engaging the advice of “experts” who are wrong most of the time.  Blogger Devon Shire is hypercritical of Robert Prechter, whose predictions are often dead wrong.  Another famous talking head is Dennis Gartman, whose own fund, HAG.TO, has remained essentially static since the fund began in 2009 while the stock indexes have greatly improved.  So why is this guy on TV?  He’s doing worse than an ING Direct savings account, where at least your money gets 1.5% interest.  The original investors of his HAG’s IPO at $10.00 are still 35 cents below water.  In the meantime, the Dow Jones and the TSX are both up about 60%.  How can a fund lose money in these conditions?  Why does Dennis Gartman get on TV and why do so many financial advisers read his famous Gartman Letter?  I think it may be because the journalists and the advisors are themselves incompetent.  At least all the many sheep following Warren Buffet around can say he is the best investor of all time.  A proven track record is actually a sign of competence.  But what proves that Gartman or Prechter know what they are talking about?

Bloggers, who have skin in the game and gain experience as they go, thus contrast with financial journalists.  Consider the Financial Post’s John Shmuel has a column with the title, “Lofty loonie spells buy opportunity”; but just a few weeks ago, he’s done columns on why Canadian stocks will outperform.  So why would he change his mind?–Or does he even see the contradiction? Well, as a journalist, he’s not actually trying to present a coherent strategy but information as it comes to him.  So I find that journalists can be great sources of information but terrible sources for eking out an investment strategy.  Why does Shmuel think that the lofty loonie spells a buying opportunity for US equities?  It seems for no better reason than that loonie is at a three year high.

Well, I did a few blogs about how and why I short the US dollar by using leverage in my US margin account to buy Canadian gold mining or oil and gas companies (e.g., abx, gg, erf, pwe, pgh).  The dividends from the oil and gas companies cover the interest charges and some.  Later, I added the selling of put options on the same equities, and reduced my overall cost of carry, because the leverage is now pushed off to some time in the future and I don’t actually have to pay interest on it today.  Has this strategy worked?  Extremely well.  Now that the loonie is at a three year high, will I now go long on the greenback or US equities as Shmuel’s article advises?  I don’t think so.  Consider the following chart (source Yahoo! Finance, straight line is mine):

What we see is that the loonie hit a low of $1.61 in 2002 and has basically improved in a nine year trend against a dollar.  Once the extremes of 2008-2009 are removed, a secular trend emerges which would suggest that the greenback will continue to move down against the loonie unless the fundamentals that caused this trend are changed.  If we looked at gold or oil against the dollar, we will see the same trend.  What we are seeing in the chart is US dollar inflation.  Not that the loonie is much better, but what happens in periods of inflation is that the cost of commodities rise.  Since the Canadian dollar depends so much on commodities, then whither commodities so the loonie.  If the price of commodities is increased by the inflation of the US dollar, can we expect this trend to reverse?  I think so if any of the following events were to happen:

(1) If Bernanke gives up QE.

(2) If Stephen Harper announces a deficit budget in the order of 150 billion or more (its is currently projected at 45.4 billion).

(3) If the US Congress makes serious cuts or attempts to balance the US federal budget.

(4) If the Chinese and other foreign investors decide to abandon Canada.

Let’s discuss each of these issues:

(1) If Bernanke gives up QE. I fully expect him to announce QE 3 in the next few months.  If he doesn’t continue to implement QE then the US government will have to make serious cuts of a trillion or so dollars from its current spending.

(2) If Stephen Harper announced a deficit budget in the order of 150 billion or more.  The Canadian population is about 1/10th that of the USA.  Therefore, the Canadian deficit would have to reach 150 billion in order to match the magnitude of the US deficits of 1.5 trillion.  I don’t see this happening under Harper’s watch.  In fact the trend is that the deficit is dropping in Canada.

(3) If the US Congress makes serious cuts or attempts to balance the US federal budget. This won’t happen until a cost cutting president gets elected.  It may actually never happen.  But the new Republican House is arguing over small cuts which won’t make any difference in a 1.5 trillion or so deficit.  Cut a few hundred billion out of that, and you are still over $1 trillion.

(4) If the Chinese and other foreign investors decide to abandon Canada. Right now, China, Korea, Thailand, Japan are all pouring money into Canadian resources.  Heck, foreigners are even buying our sovereign debt.  I see this trend continuing, as Canada has what these economies need, commodities.

The economy in the US is bad.  I’ve lost money in the US in a bad real estate deal started in 2008.  You won’t see me fall into that trap again unless the secular trends change.  My feeling is that my reasons for shorting the US dollar haven’t changed because the loonie has improved to $1.03 US.  This is a sign of secular trend not a buying opportunity for US stocks.

And if you ask me why I expatriated from the US?  I’ll tell you now that it’s so that at least one of my dad’s four children will still be able to take care of him in his old age.

Update:  Why pick on the Financial Post and John Shmuel?  David Berman has a similar article at the Globe & Mail: “Bruised greenback an opportunity for Canadian investors.”  Like Shmuel, he makes it clear that the US dollar is at a low but doesn’t seem to deal with any of the secular trends that put it there and then irrationally states:

It seems likely that the worst of the freefalling is over, given that the factors that drove the dollar down – including massive deficits and stimulative monetary policies – will probably move in reverse as the economy improves.

But he provides no actual proof that the US economy is improving.  That’s just baseless optimism as far as I can see.  Personally, I doubt that the damage of the QE that Bernanke’s already done has run its course.  Some inflationistas believe that when the economy actually improves, that’s when we will see the full effect of monetary inflation, because then velocity and credit will also expand.