Risk On

Investors have not been this optimistic about the global economy since the financial crises. And as of late, there have been a consistent number of positive economic reports that have continued to contribute to this rally in the equity markets. With the yield on US 10 year bonds back up over 2 percent today, it is evident that a risk on play is continuing to develop in the markets. And as safe haven sovereign debt sells off, metals have benefited from this trade.

I think it’s in my blood to be a skeptic, and that side of me will overcome the joyousness shortly, but it is important to start with the positives in this market right now. Despite the rejigging of corporate balance sheets and the profits that prevailed from businesses vastly cutting costs, the US private sector looks to be optimistic about the economy, and for that reason they are hiring. The job numbers released this morning (which are looked upon with caution because of their volatility) are for the first time since the financial crises one level above mediocrity. Given the US labor market requires growth of anywhere between 90 to 120 thousand jobs a month to keep up with population growth, seeing payrolls add over 220 thousand positions is very positive and hopeful for economic growth.

It is also the hope and optimism of investors that has continued to fuel this rally in the stock markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average took out its previous high set in October of 2007, and came back from the low of below 6,500 in March of 2009. There were many pundits who did not seem to care because of the Dow being an outdated and undiversified index, and in a sense they are all correct, but the real reason it is attracting this much attention is because the valid S&P 500 will shortly tell a similar story.

There is no question these markets have come back from some very dark days, and right now it’s hard to argue that equities are not the place to be, but there is more than the optimism of investors that is carrying this market. Since its bottom in March of 2009, equities have been lifted by the operations of the US Federal Reserve as they ensured liquidity in the US financial markets. It was the fact the Fed could act as a back stop for creditors, and guaranteed to borrowers that interest rates would not skyrocket that there is this level of optimism in the market. Referring to the graph, the highlighted time periods represents purchases of treasury bonds and Asset Backed Securities by the US Federal Reserve and the actions of their efforts is quite clearly evident.

S&P and QE

With this much optimism in the markets it does not take too much time for the typical economists or analysts of other views to raise warning flags. Nouriel Roubini, the economist known for calling the housing market collapse believes the crash from this bubble in this bond market will be greater than the previous crash of financial markets in 2008-09. There is no question as to whether or not there is a bubble in the bond market, especially when you have the world’s most powerful central bank suppressing interest rates and holding up prices. The question is instead, what’s there exit plan?

US stock markets have come back from the lows of 2009 and that is great. And broadly speaking, US stocks do represent the opportunity in this market at the moment. But instead of trying to make my case myself, I’ll quote former Citi CEO Chuck Prince.

“When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.” That was in July of 2007. Refer to the graph above to see what happened next.

Deficits and Downgrades

In August of 2011 when Standard and Poor’s downgraded their rating of US government debt, markets were shocked. The downgrade came on a Friday after the market close, and when the US markets opened the following Monday morning, the three indices fell between 5 and 7 percent over the course of the day. What a reaction.

The ultimate safe haven that day was of course the US dollar, which is the ultimate paradox of financial markets, but funds flew into the very US government bonds that had been downgraded three days prior. Over the past week we witnessed both Moody’s downgrade the sovereign debt of Great Britain, and Fitch issuing warning on debt and lack of budget and entitlement reform in the United States. These are two ostensibly apparent issues, yet the equity markets really seemed to shrug these warnings and downgrades off.

Its seems that the markets have finally grasped the idea of “not fighting the Fed” by continuing to move money back into equities and risk assets in lieu of sitting idle in cash or savings. This is despite what might be some investors concerns over the return of their capital verses the return on their capital. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), however, offer another opinion for reason why we would not expect a market reaction. They suggest the rating agencies have a “poor track record of sovereign risk pricing over the past twenty years;” furthermore, “any downgrades should be carefully scrutinized, and not taken at face value.” There is plenty of evidence to back up this claim, but the fact that the rating agencies often are late to the party (or in some instances completely miss it) doesn’t mean there is no concern for the alarming debt levels in the worlds advanced economies. Moreover, it is often the case with the complexity of these issues pertaining to sovereign debt, there lies more to the equation than we see.

Latest estimates for the United Kingdom’s Debt-to-GDP ratio are for roughly 81 percent. Though that ratio is much higher as we look across the peripheral Eurozone or perhaps Japan, it is not the ratio itself that worry’s analysts, but the UK’s ability to reign in their debt burden over the next few years. Particular to the UK, and also as an aside is the massive threat their financial sector continues to pose as some estimates have their liabilities at 2.19 times the country’s GDP.

Ultimately though, this has become ‘the debate’ in economics with respect to a nation’s macro economy and what importance should be associated with their debt load. More liberal economists don’t see this number as particularly important because when a country faces recession or slow growth, there are more concerning issues with long term unemployment and workers losing the skills to advance in the work force and develop the economy. The other side to that coin is that by monetizing or inflating a country’s debt only acts to discourage saving and creates a burden for the rest of the economy by only delaying an inevitable problem.

One thing is clear that continuing to finance government expenditures by running continued deficits limits the reach of government and exhausts their ability to successfully stimulate the economy when the next shock hits. We literally have a conundrum with countries like Great Britain or the US because austerity measures need to be imposed to bring balance back to their budgets; however, these draconian cuts have serious consequences for economic growth in the near term, and as witnessed daily, they are both socially and politically unpalatable.

Without manageable debt levels, a central government’s ability to react and respond to crisis is hindered by its over-encumbered promises of the past. Regardless of debt rating agencies raising the red flag, this is an ongoing problem with no clear solution in site.

Dissent at the Fed

Download PDF

The release of January’s FOMC minutes had a fairly substantial impact on precious metals this week as on Wednesday alone we witnessed more than a 2 percent sell off in the price of gold. Some analysts attributed this sell off to investors closing out gold positions as a number of them had been financed with borrowed money. The deleveraging witnessed in gold futures positions could very much be attributed to the downward movement in the price, but there is a bigger picture here in terms of what we are seeing in the markets and that is the expectations of higher interest rates.

The dissent at US Fed revealed by January’s minutes highlights the uncertainty from committee members regarding the costs and benefits of their bond purchasing program known as Quantitative Easing. There is beginning to be a revelation from committee members that by supressing long term interest rates high risk borrowers are able to finance credit at what might be discounted prices. This a direct off-shoot of the actions of the Fed extending the duration of their balance sheet by holding longer term bonds opposed to paper with a shorter period to maturity. As increasing number of committee members now fear, they very well could be setting up another asset bubble in junk bonds and high risk mortgages as these borrowers have been given the potential to overburden themselves with debt. In fact, when borrowers are able to finance debt at a lower than “usual” interest rates, it means that the price of that debt is perhaps overvalued, hence the bubble.

On Wednesday, all markets took this as the Fed could be ending QE a lot sooner than we expected. Not only did commodities take a hit, but as well equities sold off as risk appetite left the market place, which is accompanied by resurgence in the greenback. If it is the US central banks approach to begin scaling back their asset purchases, the Fed would likely take a loss on the long term bonds it holds as they attempt to trade them back into the market. It’s no secret that this is the Fed’s endgame as they look to reduce the same balance sheet representing the US currency that has more than tripled since the onset of the Sub-Prime Crises. However, the doubt amongst investors is still how the Fed plans on doing this, and perhaps at what price will the market absorb this barrage of US government debt?

This alone provides rational for the potential of long term interest rates starting to rise. Simply for the fact that not only will investors require a much higher interest rate as the economy now carries a credible risk of inflation over the longer term, yet also such a sudden bond supply increase discounts prices and in turn create upward pressure on interest rates. Therefore, savings that were sitting in gold could be sold off as these funds could flow back into the market and potentially earn a more attractive yield over time. This has to do with the potential of real interest rates rising and money leaving real assets.

The question we have to ask though surrounds what happens to the hopes of this US economic recovery when the above situation unfolds. Furthermore, when the US Federal Reserve begins to tighten monetary conditions and in turn reduce their bond holdings, with very high probability the market reaction in terms of interest rates will not be quite as theoretical as I have played out. It could be accompanied by some turbulence.

To digress, I find it humorous whenever someone tells me with great certainty that gold will hit 2500 US/oz. or some other ambiguous figure in a certain period of time. I loosely believe in the efficiency of markets, and as always the price of gold is reflected in its current price. If it should be 2500 US/oz., then it would be that price today. Nonetheless, gold closing the week at 1581.19 US/oz., down 2.3 percent hasn’t spooked me from holding it as it still has value as a hedge against that economic uncertainty that will prevail.

Are Currency Wars Really our Concern?

Download PDF

The G20, a group composed of finance department officials and central bankers from twenty developed and emerging market economies from around the world are meeting this weekend in Moscow. One of the main topics of discussion will be the notion of currency wars and the links to fiscal and monetary policy. This whole premise of currency wars though has sparked a fear amongst investors that there will be a period of extreme volatility in exchange rates. Quickly though, the word “war” is far too extreme. It perhaps overhypes the implications of these policies. None the less, measures to spur domestic growth do have direct implications on a country’s exchange rate, and thus are much more far-reaching.

It was earlier this week, when a subgroup of the G20 (known to as the G7) issued a statement that created much confusion and unnecessary conflict around currency devaluation. To summarize, they proclaimed that central banks are permitted to utilize domestic policy measures to stimulate economic growth at home. In essence, they are saying that it is simply okay for policy makers to be willfully blind and not consider the unintended consequences of domestic policy on their exchange rate with nations with whom they trade.

It’s my opinion that the G7’s statement is truly naïve and lacks depth. There is no question that central bankers enacted these policies to spur domestic economic growth. The off shoot, however, is that these policies often devalue their price level and in turn their currency which encourages export led growth. The reason being that when, for example, the US dollar depreciates against the Chinese Yuan, US goods can become cheaper in China as fewer Yuan are required for the purchase. So really, it depends in which context a policy is considered domestic in a global economy.

Japan, for somewhat good reason, has been scapegoated as the villain when it comes to the excessive policy of central banks, but unfortunately for them it is because onlookers have a very myopic view. Furthermore, it is a faux pas for a Prime Minister to intervene in the actions of his central bank and thus has directed a lot of negative attention. That being noted, Japan’s currency has appreciated significantly since the financial crises because the country attracted capital as a result of the lose policy from the US Fed as investors seek a safe haven. They are only attempting to restore balance in their export led economy which has been competing with a strengthening Yen and loss in productivity from an aging population.

None of the above is to act as a defense for the Bank of Japan or the policy actions of other central banks around the world. It is simply fact. Many central bankers are following the actions of US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England such that their currency is not viewed as a safe harbor to attract capital and cut them off from export markets. This is why we have seen countries like Egypt and Brazil be considered as losers because they are or perhaps were strong emerging economies that attracted capital; therefore, their respective currencies appreciated against the US dollar.

These policies, prompted by central banks are primarily intended to encourage investors to put their money back into the economy and invest in equities and businesses. It is to prompt the reinvestment of cash that has been sitting idle for the last four years. What’s unfortunate is that there has to be a cost for all this beyond the notion of currency wars. The US Federal Reserve simply cannot triple their balance sheet to finance the US Treasury’s (aka Federal Government’s) operations without a cost. Same with the Bank of Japan who will tolerate higher levels of inflation by increasing bond purchases financed by expanding their money supply to encourage economic growth. Many are predicting inflation, it could be a credit crunch, it could be an erosion of confidence in the markets, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Could the US oil boom be the trigger for Canada’s Housing Bubble?

Dowload PDF

Record petroleum exports out of the US in December contributed to the geopolitical superpower narrowing their trade deficit by more than 10 billion USD. This allowed them to record their trade deficit at what is now a three year low. As the US trimmed back their imports in the month, the decrease in their deficit was also attributed to exports surging by 2.13 percent. It’s time for Canada to determine whether it wants to continue to play a prominent role in the State’s energy production. Right now, however, it does not look like we are very proactive in expanding our energy exports anywhere in the world.

Canada’s December trade numbers were abysmal. It’s no surprise that in a month when US oil imports are at the lowest level since 1997 that our exports amount to a drag on our gross domestic product. Data from the last decade shows the opportunity Canada has had in exporting our oil to the US. In 2002, Canadian crude accounted for less than 16 percent of the all US crude imports. Estimates are that that number is as high as 28 percent in 2012, and that was during a period when the US faced a decline in oil imports. The ease and opportunity for the US to import oil from a sound Western government such as Canada has crowded out their imports from less politically stable countries.

For a western democracy, however, direct concerns of stability are more centered on our economy vis-à-vis the housing and financial markets. It is no surprise that the Canadian housing market has gathered international intention, especially following the British governments attempt to interrogate Governor-elect Mark Carney for his record at the Bank of Canada. But what we are witnessing in Canada is no different to what other nations such as the US, UK, and Spain have witnessed in the past. Each of the aforementioned countries followed the pattern of household debt levels increasing in tandem with house prices, and as a result eventually saw a price correction. As is apparent with the Canadian market, house prices are yet to correct.

It’s my opinion though, that instead of waiting for prices to correct, there lays an alternative option to bring our household imbalances into check; exploit our natural resources, which will present opportunities inclusive of job creation and thus economic prosperity. Without missing an opportunity to take a shot at President Obama, the Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved in his first term in office. If he was less worried about the Electoral College votes from the state of Nebraska and more concerned over US job creation, greater volumes of Tar Sands crude would already be heading to the Gulf of Mexico. For that matter, when the opportunity arises to sell crude or natural gas to Asia, we’d rather flip flop around the actual issues and glorify so called environmentalists.

Beyond Canada’s housing market’s relation to that of the US, UK, and Spain, we’re not that different from other small western nations that have witnessed both real estate prices increase and been hindered by an appreciating exchange rate. Countries like Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, and Singapore have all fought a stronger currency while attempting to grow their economies, and in turn their housing markets attracted capital. The real assets of these nations are what investors perceive to have value when there is global uncertainty in equity markets. That is why when people suggest we are amidst a recovery, that people start to question whether home prices are overvalued.

In very simple terms, Canadians on average are overleveraged. We are holding too much debt. Why then, when there are present opportunities to relieve household imbalances are we balking at the opportunity to prosper as a nation?

 

Loonie Loses it’s Luster?

Download PDF

The Canadian dollar against its US counterpart had one of the narrowest trading ranges of most major currency crosses in the last few months and had not closed below par since November of 2012. That all changed this week as we saw the loonie fall over a cent and a half and finished trading at close to 99 cents. There were a number of announcements and releases this week that triggered the downward trend in the Canadian dollar and it was led by both the IMF and Bank of Canada revising down their forecasts for economic growth and inflation, and further the Banks more dovish tone towards interest rates. Moreover, currency markets have once again become a little more interesting as the perception of “currency wars” is again explored by investors and the media.

Many of the economics departments of Canada’s financial institutions were pointing out that the loonie had been overvalued since last fall. With trade numbers, growth projections, and fundamental indicators all pointing to an overvalued currency, it was the stability in our government compared to the rest of the western world that was driving investors to park funds here in Canada. That being said, the recent realization that the United States is expected to experience more robust growth in 2013 and the stagnation of prices has seen our dollar return to under parity. As the Canadian dollar was exhibiting this status of a safe haven currency, it had even led the IMF to recommend its inclusion in a central banks basket of foreign exchange reserves. Despite the loonie falling off this week, the reality is the Canadian economy has not drastically changed course from where we were five months ago.

Jim Flaherty, speaking in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum summarized our growth path compared to the US quite well. To summarize, we are in a period of quite moderate economic growth, and in 2008 we experienced a little dip. The US, however, went a lot lower than us and is bound to accelerate and make their way back at a bit of faster pace. So it really raises the question of why financial markets continue to tell a different story then where the world sits from an economic standpoint.

US equity markets are at their highest levels in the last five years. They have come back from the lows of the Sub-prime crises of 2008 and ’09 and the confidence of investors is driving them higher and higher. The VIX, which tracks the implied volatility of the S&P, and for this reason is referred to as the fear index, is at its lowest levels on record.

So keeping the mindset of a student, questions arise surrounding why equity markets carry such optimism in this moderate growth environment. And this leads to the discussion and motivation of currency wars. Two central bodies can directly influence a country’s price level, and thus the exchange rate. One is the federal government through fiscal policy, and the other is a central bank via monetary policy. Either can do so, but this idea of devaluing a currency to give a competitive trade advantage so that a countries good are priced cheaper in foreign markets has been directly influenced by the actions of central bankers in initiating bond buying programs such as quantitative easing and keeping interest rates at record lows since 2006.

It’s hard to rationalize why in a period when government looks to be more and more anemic, and central bankers are relied on to engage in a competition of currency devaluation to stimulate economic activity, that the market place would be so optimistic. That being said, lets enjoy the ride of this rally and look for warning signs of it coming to an end.

Germany wants its gold back—should we worry?

Download PDF

News surfaced this week that the Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, was recalling some 674 tonnes of gold that they hold outside of the country. This came as quite a surprise as this particular gold has been stored with the New York Federal Reserve and Bank de France for decades. But many were asking the question, why does it matter where Germany stores their gold?

Following World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, the majority of Germany’s gold was moved to the safekeeping of western central banks as a threat of Soviet invasion loomed; however, not until the end of the war did Germany start bringing their gold home. Germany is the world’s second largest holder of gold, and they held as little as three percent of their entire holdings domestically during the wars. Currently, that number is around 31%, and their plan is to hold about 50% of their gold in Frankfurt by 2020 by repatriating these 674 tonnes from New York and Paris.

Various commentators have tried to provide rationale for why Germany would have the incentive to do this with reasons ranging from the US Fed and central banks lack of proper auditing practices to the gold actually not being there. Giving conspiracy theories only so much credibility, I think Germany’s motivation is deeper and stems from the geopolitical risk of a breakup of the European Union.

Economic growth across the Eurozone is stagnant at best as they look to start off 2013 in a double dip recession. The Euro Zone sees almost a quarter (24.7%) of their labor force under the age of 25 unemployed and seeking work. And rates are higher in peripheral Eurozone countries like Greece, Spain, and Italy, who saw youth unemployment increase to 57.6%, 56.5%, and 37.1% respectively. The social unrest in these countries stems from the inability to find and/or keep work, and this ongoing problem that bares no present solution is what threatens the single currency zones present stability.

Through these times of economic uncertainty it is gold’s role in international finance that safeguards a number of these European nations from extreme currency instability. It’s interesting to note that while Germany looks to repatriate a large portion of their gold holdings, that these countries are still largely dependent on the precious metal. As the German’s are the second largest holder of physical gold, not far behind are Italy, France, and the rest of the EU to make up over 10,000 tonnes and almost a third of the World’s Central Banks’ Foreign Exchange Reserves. The very asset that backs their currency, unlike a lot of Asia, which post Bretton Woods opted to hold US dollars, is predominantly made up of gold. In essence, that is why Europe’s central banks are bound by an agreement referred to as CBGA3 which limits them flooding the market with large quantities of physical gold.

This preamble circles back to the importance of Germany bringing home their gold to store domestically, and I believe their reason for doing so is not unlike the typical retail investor who holds gold. Gold is the hedge or the insurance against debasement of currencies and geopolitical risk. I hope for the sake of the Nobel Price-winning Canadian Economist, Robert Mundell, that the Eurozone does not dissipate, but this move by Germany may be hedging against just that.

The Trillion Dollar Coin

Download PDF

The idea that the US treasury will mint a one trillion dollar platinum coin in order to avoid the debt ceiling seems somewhat absurd, but faced with a government threatened with deadlock and inaction it is being entertained. The premise behind this coin is that it avoids entering a debate scenario similar to August of 2011 where “Tea Party” Republicans toyed with the idea of the US government defaulting on their debt payments and liabilities. That being said, not raising the debt ceiling, which has been done on 78 separate occasions since 1960, and pursuing alternative measures to avoid exhausting the US Treasury’s coffers will ultimately shock both creditors and rating agencies.

The glutinous spending of the US government is no secret by now. And it is known that there is a very serious debate to be had in the US about the structure of their entitlement programs and their continuing problems with their deficit financed spending. It seems the approach, however, of the current administration is to simply leave addressing these issues to someone else as politically palatable actions seem to be the more favoured course of action. And just like passing a budget deal without addressing entitlement programs, the idea around issuing a one trillion dollar coin is exactly that; putting off the job of addressing the structural issues of their deficit for someone else.

Despite all the structural issues in the US, there has been a serious shift of optimism in equities, and thus moving away from fixed income, as investors start to hope this global recovery continues to takes place. And the speed bump to a rallying stock market, as many have predicted will rally in the beginning of 2013, will be debt ceiling talks in the US. The media exemplifies polarized views, either extremely left or right wing when discussing the idea of the treasury issuing this coin, but the implications of it are not political and in fact quite simple.

US lawmakers along with the over glorified president are too dysfunctional to sit down and debate spending such that the Treasury has to take its own course of action. Such a vote of non-confidence by minting this coin will not only disrupt their currency and the price of the US dollar, but also their credit rating. This will be a signal to international lenders that when it comes to finances, parties involved can only travel to the extremes to achieve this charade. It is almost unbelievable. The US government is losing any shred of creditability they have left.

And that is really what the problem is. When Obama got re-elected for a second term he must have truly believed that he had a mandate to do whatever he wanted. John Boehner, who is a moderate Republican, is under pressure from the fringe of his party to get some compromise in terms of spending cuts, and the president, to use a baseball metaphor, will not even come to bat.

To paraphrase PIMCO Bond King, Bill Gross, the US Treasury is in essence writing cheques for free. They issue bonds to be bought by the Fed, and then receive back the interest that the bonds have paid. His claim is that there must be a cost for this as, simply put, cheques cannot be written for free. Ultimately, the cost will be inflation.

Some think inflation is palatable. I am on the other side of that bet and that is why I believe in real assets like gold and land. But the message is that every action has its costs. If the US opts for minting a trillion dollar coin, the costs will be insurmountable.

Calling the Fed’s Bluff

Download PDF

The US Federal Reserve revealed from their December meeting that several of their voting members would opt to end their extensive bond purchasing program, known as Quantitative Easing, by the end of 2013. It was back in November of 2008 when the US Fed initiated this monetary stimulus effort, and just for reference the price of gold closed that month at 811.30 USD/oz. It’s no secret the price of gold has moved up significantly in response to the US central bank’s issuance of cheap credit at the cost of their dollar, but the question then becomes what happens to the price of gold when the Fed takes the punch bowl away?

Well, that is a scenario that I do not think we need to worry about just yet.

There is no set in stone timeline for when this stimulus program will end, but it is up to the Federal Reserve’s Policy setting committee. The structure of the Fed’s policy setting committee (known as the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC) has it so that the majority rules. Of the twelve voting members, there are seven Federal Reserve board governors, including chairman Bernanke, which traditionally vote in unison. The remaining five positions rotate between the 12 Federal Reserve District Bank presidents, and that is there there can be dissent from the consensus. This structure, however, ensures the governors have their majority in all decision making.

The renowned Bond Fund investor Bill Gross of PIMCO stated on CNBC following the release of the FOMC December minutes that it’s too early to put an end date on this monetary policy experiment. The incoming voting members of the FOMC are more dovish and will support a more accommodative policy going into 2013. For this reason alone, it’s too soon to anticipate these bond purchases will be wound down.

In fact, James Bullard, the St. Louis Fed’s district president promptly told media following the release of the December minutes that it will take a significant improvement in the economy to end the program instead of setting some tentative date. This was his effort to make clear that the Fed’s expectation is for the economy to improve by the end of this year, such that they will no longer need to supply such a supportive policy; moreover, cutting back bond purchases is very conditional on an improvement in output and labour markets.

In an introductory course to macroeconomics we learn how central banks may utilize the media to affect consumer and business confidence. If business’s all truly believe that the economy will improve by the end of 2013 maybe that will prompt them to go out and hire more employee’s and increase capital expenditure and investment. But then, how much of the Fed’s forecast for the improvement in the economy is based on the fact that business and consumers will react in this way?

My view is that the US economy will continue to advance at a mediocre pace in 2013. Friday’s job’s report helped illustrate that the labour market is only moving in accordance as job creation remains quite weak and only slightly outpaces the growth of their labour force.

The US Federal Reserve will have no choice but to continue their experiment known as Quantitative Easing due to how reliant this fragile American economy truly is. With a stalemate in Washington that only looks to get worse, the next bump in the road will be negotiations on the budget ceiling and the imposition of spending cuts that the federal government keeps delaying. This will lead to very cautious levels of investment and consumption akin to 2012. With a market potentially expecting an end to this program by 2013 year-end, any extension will be very bullish for gold.

Lack of Governance

Download PDF

The inability of the American government to a pass a budget bill exemplifies how inefficient and dysfunctional their system of government truly is. And it is unfortunate for us as Canadian’s to sit by and passively watch the demise of our greatest trading partner. Responses to American’s going over this “fiscal cliff” have been twofold. One side, including the views of some analysts and rating agencies are claiming that a nose dive over the cliff leading to 600 billion dollars’ worth of automatic spending cuts and complemented with tax increases for all earners will send the US immediately into recession. Extreme estimates are for GDP to contract by as much as four percent. The other side of the coin views the cliff as over-hyped, for a potential deal to smooth spending cuts and avoid tax increases to a struggling middle class is still possible for early in 2013. Further to this, an entitled president will have the ability to put forth a budget with limited opposition from a defeated Republican congress.

So, despite the warnings from Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard and Poor’s of the imminent danger of plunging over a metaphorical cliff, the real question regarding the American’s approach to putting forth a budget deal and attempting to address how to finance the future liabilities of major entitlement programs like health care and Social Security is, should the impasse of the American government really come as that big of a surprise?

The answer is no.

We do not even have to delve that far back in time to see that a lot of these budget deals or bills involving government financing do not actually occur until the 11th hour. It was as recently as August of 2011 that the Budget Control Act was drawn up to increase the US debt ceiling. And it was August the 2nd, the exact day that non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had earlier estimated the US’s would reach its borrowing limit, that the bill was passed. It is unfortunate that with only the pressure of time there is accomplishment; however, the word accomplishment is over ambitious as America’s solutions to their fiscal problems leave much to be desired.

Debt has been the ongoing issue for a number of years, and unless we are in crises people seem oblivious to the reality of it. It was as recent as October that the IMF, Bank of International Settlements, and the Congressional Budget Office in the US warned of the increasing present value of America’s future liabilities.

Back to budget debates, initially there was a common misconception involving America’s debt ceiling that it was a debate over the size of government. Simply put though, the money had already been spent. The debt limit needed to be increased in order to avoid defaulting on payments already issued by their government. This was not a debate for bigger government; in reality, it was already that big. Same too with what is expected to come to fruition with America’s entitlement programs. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are increasing financial burdens. They were designed to provide support in correspondence with the levels they are currently contributed too.

That is why the American system of government is broken and remains broken. They are unable to decide upon how to finance their country, and in what direction they want to lead it. Until they do, the allocation to real assets like, gold, real estate, or other tangible assets are the only thing that provides protection against the pall of debt casted over the global market place.