Income Inequality? American Savers Treated Like Dogs

By Tony Sagami

One of the hot political topics these days is income inequality, but one of the groups of Americans that’s the most mistreated by Washington DC is the millions of Americans who have responsibly saved for their retirement.

When I entered the investment business as a stock broker at Merrill Lynch in the 1980s, savers could routinely get 7-9% on their money with riskless CDs and short term Treasury bonds.

In fact, I sold multimillions of dollars’ worth of 16 year zero coupon Treasury bonds at the time. Zero coupon bonds are debt instruments that don’t pay interest (a coupon) but are instead traded at a deep discount, rendering profit at maturity when the bond is redeemed for its full face value.

At the time, long term interest rates were at 8%, so the zero coupon Treasury bonds that I sold cost $250 each but matured at $1,000 in 16 years. A government-guaranteed quadruple!

Ah, those were the good old days for savers, largely thanks to the inflation fighting tenacity of Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan from August 1979 to August 1987.

Monetary policies couldn’t be more different under Alan “Mr. Magoo” Greenspan, “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen. This trio of hear see speak no evil bureaucrats have never met an interest rate cut that they didn’t like and have pushed interest rates to zero.

The yield on the 30 year Treasury bond hit an all time record low last week at 2.45%. Yup, an all time low that our country hasn’t seen in more than 300 years!

These low yields have made it increasingly difficult to earn a decent level of income from traditional fixed-income vehicles like money markets, CDs, and bonds.

Unless you’re content with near-zero return on your savings, you’ve got to adapt to the new era of ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). However, you cannot just dive into the income arena and buy the highest paying investments you can find. Most are fraught with hidden risks and dangers.

So to fully understand how to truly and dramatically boost your investment income, you absolutely must look at your investments in a new light, fully understanding the new risks as well as the new opportunities. There are really two challenges that all of us will face as we transition from employment to retirement: longer life expectancies; and lower investment yields.

Risk #1: Improved health care and nutrition have dramatically boosted life expectancies for both men and women. We will all enjoy a longer, healthier life, which means more time to enjoy retirement and spend with friends/family, but it also means that whatever money we’ve accumulated will have to work harder as well as longer.

Today, a 65 year-old man can expect to live until age 82, almost four years longer than 25 years ago; the life expectancy for a 65 year old woman is also up—from 82 years in the early 1980s to 85 today.

The steady increase in life expectancy is definitely something to celebrate, but it also means we’ll need even bigger nest eggs.

Risk #2: Don’t forget about inflation. Prices for daily necessities are higher than they were just a few years ago and constantly erode the purchasing power of your savings.

The way I see it, your comfort in retirement has never been more threatened than it is today, and it doesn’t matter if you’re 20 or 70.

The rules are different, and you only have two choices:

#1. spend your retirement as a Walmart greeter (if you’re lucky enough to get a job!); or

#2. adapt to the new rules of income investing.

Today, the new rules of successful income investing consist of putting together a collection of income focused assets, such as dividend paying stocks, bonds, ETFs, and real estate, that generate the highest possible annual income at the lowest possible risk.

Even in an environment of near zero interest rates and global uncertainty, there are many ways an investor can generate a healthy income while remaining in control. Income stocks should form the core of your income portfolio.

Income stocks are usually found in solid industries with established companies that generate reliable cash flow. Such companies have little need to reinvest their profits to help grow the business or fund research and development of new products, and are therefore able to pay sizeable dividends back to their investors.
What do I look for when evaluating income stocks?

• Macro picture. While it’s a subjective call, we want to invest in companies that have the big-picture macroeconomic wind at their backs and have long-term sustainable business models that can thrive in the current economic environment.

• Competitive advantage. Does the company have a competitive advantage within its own industry? Investing in industry leaders is generally more productive than investing in the laggards.

• Management. The company’s management should have a track record of returning value to shareholders.

• Growth strategy. What’s the company’s growth strategy? Is it a viable growth strategy given our forward view of the economy and markets?

• A dividend payout ratio of 80% or less, with the rest going back into the company’s business for future growth. If a business pays out too much of its profit, it can hurt the firm’s competitive position.

• A dividend yield of at least 3%. That means if a company has a $10 stock price, it pays annual cash dividends of at least $0.30 a year per share.

• The company should have generated positive cash flow in at least the last year. Income investing is about protecting your money, not hitting the ball out of the park with risky stock picks.

• A high return on equity, or ROE. A company that earns high returns on equity is usually a better-than-average business, which means that the dividend checks will keep flowing into our mailboxes.

This doesn’t mean that you should rush out and buy a bunch of dividend-paying stocks tomorrow morning. As always, timing is everything, and many—if not most—dividend stocks are vulnerably overpriced.

But make no mistake; interest rates aren’t rising anytime soon, and the solid, all weather income stocks (like the ones in my Yield Shark service) will help you build and enjoy a prosperous retirement. In fact, you can click here to see the details on one of the strongest income stocks I’ve profiled in Yield Shark in months.


Tony Sagami

30 year market expert Tony Sagami leads the Yield Shark and Rational Bear advisories at Mauldin Economics. To learn more about Yield Shark and how it helps you maximize dividend income, click here.

To learn more about Rational Bear and how you can use it to benefit from falling stocks and sectors, click here.

The article Connecting the Dots: Income Inequality? American Savers Treated Like Dogs was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Yellen’s Wand Is Running Low on Magic

By Doug French, Contributing Editor

How important is housing to the American economy?

If a 2011 SMU paper entitled "Housing's Contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) quot; is right, nothing moves the economic needle like housing. It accounts for 17% to 18% of GDP. And don't forget that home buyers fill their homes with all manner of stuff—and that homeowners have more skin in insurance on what's likely to be their family's most important asset. All claims to the contrary, the disappointing first quarter housing numbers expose the Federal Reserve as impotent at influencing GDP's most important component.

The Fed: Housing's Best Friend

 

No wonder every modern Fed chairman has lowered rates to try to crank up housing activity, rationalizing that low rates make mortgage payments more affordable. Back when he was chair, Ben Bernanke wrote in the Washington Post, "Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance."

In her first public speech, new Fed Chair Janet Yellen said one of the benefits to keeping interest rates low is to "make homes more affordable and revive the housing market."

As quick as they are to lower rates and increase prices, Fed chairs are notoriously slow at spotting their own bubble creation. In 2002, Alan Greenspan viewed the comparison of rising home prices to a stock market bubble as "imperfect." The Maestro concluded, "Even if a bubble were to develop in a local market, it would not necessarily have implications for the nation as a whole."

Three years later—in 2005—Ben Bernanke was asked about housing prices being out of control. "Well, I guess I don't buy your premise," he said. "It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in home prices on a nationwide basis." With never a bubble in sight, the Fed constantly supports housing while analysts and economists count on the housing stimulus trick to work.

2014 GDP Depends on Housing

 

"There's more expansion ahead for the housing market in 2014, with starts and new-home sales continuing to rise at double-digit rates, thanks to tight inventory," writes Gillian B. White for Kiplinger. The "Timely, Trusted Personal Finance Advice and Business Forecast(er)" says GDP will bounce back. Fannie Mae Chief Economist Doug Duncan says, "Our full-year 2014 economic forecast accounts for three key growth drivers: an acceleration in spending activity from private-sector forces, waning fiscal drag from the federal government, and continued improvement in the housing market."
We'll see about that last one.

Greatest Housing Subsidy of All Time Running Out of Gas

 

With the central bank flooding the markets with liquidity, holding short rates low, and buying long term debt, mortgage rates have been consistently below 5% since the start of 2009. For all of 2012, the 30 year fixed mortgage rate stayed below 4%. In the post gold standard era (after 1971), rates have never been this low for this long. The Fed's unprecedented mortgage subsidy has helped the market make a dead cat bounce since the crash of 2008. After peaking in July 2006 at 206.52, the Case-Shiller 20 City composite index bottomed in February 2012 at 134.06. It had recovered to 165.50 as of January. However, while low rates have propped up prices, sales of existing homes have fallen in seven of the last eight months. In March resales were down 7.5% from a year earlier. That's the fifth month in a row in which sales fell below the year earlier level.

David Stockman writes, "March sales volume remained the slowest since July 2012." He listed 13 major metro areas whose sales declined from a year ago, led by San Jose, down 18%. The three worst performers and 6 of the bottom 11 were California cities. Las Vegas and Phoenix were also in the bottom 10, with sales down double digits from a year ago. This after housing guru Ivy Zelman told CNBC in February, "California is back to where it was in nirvana." Considering the entire nation, she said, "I think nirvana is not far around the corner… I think that I have to tell you, I'm probably the most bullish I've ever been fundamentally, and I'm dating myself, been around for over 20 years, so I've seen a lot of ups and downs."

Housing Headwinds

 

Housing is contributing less to overall growth than during both the days of 20% mortgage rates in the 1980s and the S&L crisis of the early 1990s. In Phoenix, where home prices have bounced back and Wall Street money has vacuumed up thousands of distressed properties, the market has gone flat. In Belfiore Real Estates' April market report, Jim Belfiore wrote, "The bad news for home builders is they have created a glut of supply in previously hot market areas… Potential buyers, as might be expected, feel no sense of urgency to buy because they believe this glut is going to exist indefinitely."

Nick Timiraos points out in the Wall Street Journal that with a 4.5% mortgage rate and prices 20% below their peak, "… homes are still more affordable than in most periods between 1990 and 2008." So why is demand for new homes so tepid? And why have refinancings fallen 58% year over year in the first quarter?
"Housing's rocky recovery could signal weakness more broadly in the economy," writes Timiraos, "reflecting the lingering damage from the bust that has left millions of households unable to participate in any housing recovery. Many still have properties worth less than the amount borrowers owe on their mortgages, while others have high levels of debt, low levels of savings, and patchy incomes."

More specifically, "So far we have experienced 7 million foreclosures," David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, writes. "Beyond that there are still nine million homeowners seriously underwater on their mortgages, and there are millions more who are stranded in place because they don't have enough positive equity to cover transactions costs and more stringent down payment requirements." Young people used to drive real estate growth, but not anymore. The percentage of young home buyers has been declining for years. Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of homeowners among people in their late twenties fell from 43% to 38%. And after the crash, the downtrend continued. The percentage of young people who obtained mortgages between 2009 and 2011 was just half what it was ten years ago.

Young people don't seem to view owning a home as the American dream, as was the case a generation ago. Plus, who has room to take on more debt when 7 in 10 students graduate college with an average $30k in student loan debt? "First time home buyers are typically an important source of incremental housing demand, so their smaller presence in the market affects house prices and construction quite broadly," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told homebuilders two years ago.

There's not much good news for housing these days. For a little while, the Fed's suppression of interest rates juiced housing enough to distract Americans from weak job creation and stagnant real wages. Don't have a job? No problem! Just borrow against the appreciation of your house to feed your family. But Yellen's interest rate wand looks to be out of magic. The government had a pipe dream of white picket fences for everyone. But Americans can't refinance their way to wealth. Especially in the Greater Depression.

Read more about the Fed’s back-breaking economic shenanigans and the ways to protect your assets in the Casey Daily Dispatch—your daily go-to guide for gold, silver, energy, technology, and crisis investing.

Click here to sign up—it’s Free.

The article Yellen’s Wand Is Running Low on Magic was originally published at Casey Research

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

 

Every Central Bank for Itself

By John Mauldin

“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

– Mike Tyson

For the last 25 days I’ve been traveling in Argentina and South Africa, two countries whose economies can only be described as fragile, though for very different reasons. Emerging market countries face a significantly different set of challenges than the developed world does. These challenges are compounded by the rather indifferent policies of developed world central banks, which are (even if somewhat understandably) entirely self centered. Argentina has brought its problems upon itself, but South Africa can somewhat justifiably express frustration at the developed world, which, as one emerging market central bank leader suggests, is engaged in a covert currency war, one where the casualties are the result of unintended consequences. But the effects are nonetheless real if you’re an emerging market country.

While I will write a little more about my experience in South Africa at the end of this letter, first I want to cover the entire emerging market landscape to give us some context. Full and fair disclosure requires that I give a great deal of credit to my rather brilliant young associate, Worth Wray, who’s helped me pull together a great deal of this letter while I am on the road in a very busy speaking tour here in South Africa for Glacier, a local platform intermediary. They have afforded me the opportunity to meet with a significant number of financial industry participants and local businessman, at all levels of society. It has been a very serious learning experience for me. But more on that later; let’s think now about the problems facing emerging markets in general.

Every Central Bank for Itself

Every general has a plan before going into battle, which immediately begins to change upon contact with the enemy. Everyone has a plan until they get hit… and emerging markets have already taken a couple of punches since May 2013, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first signaled his intent to “taper” his quantitative easing program and thereby incrementally wean the markets off of their steady drip of easy money. It was not too long after that Ben also suggested that he was not responsible for the problems of emerging-market central banks – or any other central bank, for that matter.

As my friend Ben Hunt wrote back in late January, Chairman Bernanke turned a single data point into a line during his last months in office, when he decided to taper by exactly $10 billion per month. He established the trend, and now the markets are reacting as if the Fed's exit strategy has officially begun.

Whether the FOMC can actually turn the taper into a true exit strategy ultimately depends on how much longer households and businesses must deleverage and how sharply our old age dependency ratio rises, but markets seem to believe this is the beginning of the end. For now, that’s what matters most.

Under Fed Chair Janet Yellen’s leadership, the Fed continues to send a clear message to the rest of the world: Now it really is every central bank for itself. 

The QE-Induced Bubble Boom in Emerging Markets

By trying to shore up their rich-world economies with unconventional policies such as ultra low rate targets, outright balance sheet expansion, and aggressive forward guidance, major central banks have distorted international real interest rate differentials and forced savers to seek out higher (and far riskier) returns for more than five years.

This initiative has fueled enormous overinvestment and capital misallocation – and not just in advanced economies like the United States.

As it turns out, the biggest QE-induced imbalances may be in emerging markets, where, even in the face of deteriorating fundamentals, accumulated capital inflows (excluding China) have nearly DOUBLED, from roughly $5 trillion in 2009 to nearly $10 trillion today. After such a dramatic rise in developed world portfolio allocations and direct lending to emerging markets, developed world investors now hold roughly one third of all emerging market stocks by market capitalization and also about one third of all outstanding emerging market bonds.

The Fed might as well have aimed its big bazooka right at the emerging world. That’s where a lot of the easy money ran blindly in search of more attractive real interest rates, bolstered by a broadly accepted growth story.

The conventional wisdom – a particularly powerful narrative that became commonplace in the media – suggested that emerging markets were, for the first time in a long time, less risky than developed markets, despite their having displayed much higher volatility throughout the past several decades.

As a general rule, people believed emerging markets had much lower levels of government debt, much stronger prospects for consumption led growth, and far more favorable demographics. (They overlooked the fact that crises in the 1980s and 1990s still limited EM borrowing limits until 2009 and ignored the fact that EM consumption is a derivative of demand and investment from the developed world.)

Instead of holding traditional safe haven bonds like US treasuries or German bunds, some strategists (who shall not be named) even suggested that emerging market government bonds could be the new safe haven in the event of major sovereign debt crises in the developed world. And better yet, it was suggested that denominating these investments in local currencies would provide extra returns over time as EM currencies appreciated against their developed market peers.

Sadly, the conventional wisdom about emerging markets and their currencies was dead wrong. Herd money (typically momentum based, yield chasing investors) usually chases growth that has already happened and almost always overstays its welcome. This is the same disappointing boom/bust dynamic that happened in Latin America in the early 1980s and Southeast Asia in the mid 1990s. And this time, it seems the spillover from extreme monetary accommodation in advanced countries has allowed public and private borrowers to leverage well past their natural carrying capacity.

Anatomy of a “Balance of Payments” Crisis

The lesson is always the same, and it is hard to avoid. Economic miracles are almost always too good to be true. Whether we’re talking about the Italian miracle of the ’50s, the Latin American miracle of the ’80s, the Asian Tiger miracles of the ’90s, or the housing boom in the developed world (the US, Ireland, Spain, et al.) in the ’00s, they all have two things in common: construction (building booms, etc.) and excessive leverage. As a quick aside, does that remind you of anything happening in China these days?

Just saying…...Broad based, debt fueled overinvestment may appear to kick economic growth into overdrive for a while; but eventually disappointing returns and consequent selling lead to investment losses, defaults, and banking panics. And in cases where foreign capital seeking strong growth in already highly valued assets drives the investment boom, the miracle often ends with capital flight and currency collapse.

Economists call that dynamic of inflow induced booms followed by outflow induced currency crises a “balance of payments cycle,” and it tends to occur in three distinct phases.

In the first phase, an economic boom attracts foreign capital, which generally flows toward productive uses and reaps attractive returns from an appreciating currency and rising asset prices. In turn, those profits fuel a self-reinforcing cycle of foreign capital inflows, rising asset prices, and a strengthening currency.

In the second phase, the allure of promising recent returns morphs into a growth story and attracts ever stronger capital inflows – even as the boom begins to fade and the strong currency starts to drag on competitiveness. Capital piles into unproductive uses and fuels overinvestment, overconsumption, or both; so that ever more inefficient economic growth increasingly depends on foreign capital inflows. Eventually, the system becomes so unstable that anything from signs of weak earnings growth to an unanticipated rate hike somewhere else in the world can trigger a shift in sentiment and precipitous capital flight.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: "Every Central Bank for Itself" was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Busting Economic and Natural Resource Myths

By The Gold Report

The Gold Report: Why is the theory of tapering or turning quantitative easing (QE) off a myth, and who really benefits from QE?


Rick Rule: My view—as an investor, not an economist—is that QE is misnamed. I think it's another way of saying counterfeiting. It exists in large measure because we're running a trillion-dollar deficit and, while we can hoodwink investors into funding two-thirds of it, we need to print away the last third.

TGR: What are the consequences of turning off QE?

Louis James: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said himself that he had certain criteria he wanted to see before tapering—employment in particular. Those have not been met. Employment figures have improved, but only in—I guess the technical term would be "crappy" jobs. Long-term employment, the middle class' bread and butter, is not better.

TGR: Rick, you defy common sense and argue that bull markets are bad and bear markets are good, but it doesn't feel that way.

RR: JT, at the risk of being sexist, women are normally more rational shoppers than men. Think about the stock market as a mall.

In the mall, the store on the left-hand of the entrance has a big flashing sign that says, "Bear Market Merchants All Goods 70% Off, No Reasonable Offer Refused, Come Back Tomorrow—Prices May Be Lower." The store on the right-hand side has a tiny sign that says, "Bespoke Bear Market Merchants, No Deals Ever, High Margin for Merchants, Don't Even Think About Asking for a Deal, Prices May Be Higher Next Week."

If you're going to buy a pair of shoes, which store would you go to? This is a no-brainer. When people buy physical goods, they act rationally. When they buy financial goods, they want to overpay. It's totally irrational, and it's extraordinarily common. If you want to become wealthier, why wouldn't you buy financial assets when they're on sale?

TGR: Staying with the mall analogy, does that suggest that people are afraid stocks will be on even deeper sale tomorrow?

Marin Katusa: You have to look at the timeframe. This is a great market if you're an accredited investor and have an account with someone like Rick Rule or you subscribe to the International Speculator and follow the right management teams. Today, you can invest in deals with five-year full warrants that would not have been available three years ago. Rick and I have been in meetings where the venture teams laughed at me when I requested full warrants. Rick just said, "Bite your lip, smile, and wait." And he was right.
If you're buying stock today in hopes that the market will go up the next day, you'll be in a lot of pain. But if you have a two- to five-year timeframe, you can get guys like Bob Quartermain and Lukas Lundin on sale.

LJ: What would you give to go back in time and buy Apple just after the Apple II came out? Or to buy Microsoft when DOS was new?

Over the course of the last decade—what I think of as the first half of this great bull cycle—billions of dollars have gone into the ground and done good work.

Companies with 10 million ounces of high grade gold in a safe mining jurisdiction are on sale below IPO prices. Some companies with excellent management and assets in hand are selling for less than cash value. You can buy these companies now, instead of looking for the next Apple or Microsoft.

RR: Words like "want" and "hope" in speculation are truly four-letter words, profanities. Having a stock in your portfolio that cost $200,000 and has a current market valuation of $40,000 is unfortunate, but irrelevant. Investors need to take advantage of their education and do their best with the situation at hand. Right now, things are cheap. When things are cheap you're supposed to buy. In bull markets, when things are expensive, you're supposed to sell.

Right now, buying is easy because you have no competitors. In a bull market, selling is easy because everybody is a buyer. If the market is desperately looking for bids and you are scared to death because your stocks can't catch bids, you have to bid. They say the market was desperate for asks, but this market is desperate for bids.

TGR: Some have said this the end of the commodity supercycle. Is that a myth? And is it more or less of a myth in some sectors than others?

RR: The narrative that existed in 2009-2010, when the commodity supercycle was the currency of all financial thinking, is unchanged. The first part of that narrative was founded on the idea that world population growth was taking commodity consumption higher. World population growth is not over.

The second part of the narrative was that as poor people gained more freedom, they got richer and consumed more. Political liberalization in emerging frontier markets has continued, and people are wealthier and are consuming more.

A third part of the narrative was that Western consumers had lived beyond their means and as a consequence were debasing the denominators, the fiat currencies. If you debase the denominator, the nominal value of stuff would go up. We have not stopped debasing the denominator.

The entire narrative associated with the resource-industry bull market is intact. Nothing has changed except the price. A cyclical decline in a secular bull market is a different way of describing a spectacular sale, for people who understand that the narrative hasn't changed.

TGR: Are there some sectors that still feel as if it's a commodity supercycle?

MK: Definitely. Look at oil.

RR: But your readers don't want to look for hot sectors, because they are overpriced. They want to look for cold sectors. They want to find the sector, management team, or the company that's going to be hot.

TGR: If oil is hot right now, what is going to be hot?

MK: From the energy side, I think within three years uranium will be hot.

TGR: Why the three-year timeline?

MK: There are three major catalysts. First is the end of the US-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement (HEU). The last shipment will happen at the end of 2013.

Second is the transitional agreement, in which the Russians will provide up to 50% of the uranium on a new pricing metric than the HEU agreement. Only this time, the Russians have new dance partners: Saudi Arabia, China, India, Korea, even France. The reality is the Americans will have to pay more for uranium from the Russians.

Third, nuclear reactors are not all being taken down; they're being built. Japan plans to bring its reactors back online, just not on the timeframe the junior resource sector wants them to. The Japanese cannot afford to pay the most expensive electricity prices in the world and stay competitive. They have no choice but to move forward with nuclear power.

TGR: Is the end of HEU already priced in to uranium?

MK: Yes, both because the market is determining what it's worth today and because Japan shut down 40 nuclear reactors. That's a black-swan game-changer that shifted everything.

Yet, the long-term price is 50% higher than the spot price, and more than 90% of the uranium being consumed and traded is based on the long-term price. That's the equivalent of saying gold today is $1,300/ounce, but if you want to take delivery in three or four years—which is what nuclear utilities do for uranium—you have to pay $1,900/oz. Or copper at $4.50/pound if you want delivery in five years. That's the situation in uranium today.

TGR: Louis, which sector are you looking forward to?

LJ: There's talk on the streets about helium, although I'm not sure I want to move in that direction. I'm happier focusing on something right in front of me and that I understand. Finding a company that has a multimillion-ounce, high-grade deposit and is on sale at half price is similar to going into the supermarket and finding the thickest, most beautifully marbled T-bone steak, fresh cut today, on sale for half off. Why bother with hamburger of unknown quality?

TGR: We keep hearing that we've hit a bottom, which would imply that the market is moving up. However, Rick, you have described it as a bifurcated market in which the bad stocks will continue to sink, which would be a good thing. How do we know which companies will sink and which will revive?

RR: That's a critical question. Before your readers classify stocks, they need to classify themselves. Are they the type of person who will put enough time and attention into securities analysis to compete on their own? Or do they need other people to help them compete?

While securities analysis and stock selection in the junior market is imperfect, it can be done. It requires understanding the stock. If you're not willing to understand the stock, you need an advisor.

TGR: How many hours does that work take? What questions should investors be asking?

RR: Speculators running their own portfolios without advice should limit the number of stocks in the portfolio to the number that they can spend two or three hours a month working on. That means reading every press release, proxy, quarterly, and annual report. Read the president's message and measure it against what he said the company would accomplish over the year.

Speculators unwilling to do that need to hire somebody who will. That may mean subscribing to one of the trading services offered by Casey or hiring an organization like Sprott to be a broker or a manager.
Getting to bifurcation and stock selection, if 15% of the stocks are moving higher, 85% are moving lower. You won't be able to concentrate 100% in either camp, but if you get more right than wrong, you'll make so much money that the outliers will be irrelevant. If you get it wrong, you'll lose so much money that you ought to be in some other business.

TGR: Are there fewer brokers walking the streets of Vancouver these days?

MK: Definitely, also fewer analysts and fewer corporate development positions and many fewer investor relations people.

There are more BMWs, Mercedes, and Ferraris on sale, and now more offices becoming vacant.

TGR: Does that mean only the best are left?

MK: Not necessarily.

RR: But it does reduce the population. To be a responsible analyst, you once had to look in a cursory fashion at 4,000 companies. Today, having only 3,000 companies to look at is an advantage.

The three of us look at data in a summary fashion to try and dispose of a company. You look for something to kill your interest. The good news is that the population of timewasters is down by at least a third. That's unfortunate for their shareholders, but that's their problem, not ours. Our job is to look after our subscribers or clients.

TGR: Let's talk about regions. Is it true that the Yukon is remote?

LJ: It's no more remote now than it was last year. You can't write off the Yukon or anywhere without looking at and understanding the specifics of individual opportunities. Miners with remote projects that have high enough margins are able to barge or truck diesel fuel in and run gen-sets, etc. If Canadians can mine diamonds in the Arctic Circle, they can mine gold in the Yukon.

Remoteness by itself is not the issue. The issue is margin. If you're in the Yukon and you've got something low grade, with low recoveries and complex metallurgy—don't call us, we'll call you. If you have something high grade, open pit, that leaches, tell me more.

TGR: Rick, in your presentation, you talked about platinum and palladium. Is that an area where the supercycle needs to whip things up?

RR: I don't think it even requires a supercycle. With platinum and palladium, I can look empirically at simple supply and demand. On a global basis, the platinum and palladium industry doesn't earn its cost of capital. That means one of two things will happen: The price of platinum and palladium will increase, or there won't be enough platinum and palladium to supply current demand.

In the context of supply, you don't have to worry about investor inventories because there are almost none. The world supply of existing, finished platinum and palladium is less than one year's fabrication demand.
The consequence of the industry not earning its cost of capital is that production has fallen by 19% over six years. New mine supply is falling. South Africa itself accounts for 70% of world platinum production and 39% of world palladium production.

In South Africa, the industry has deferred $5 billion in sustaining capital investments; workers are dying and infrastructure is more and more decrepit.

A skilled worker crouching 7,000 feet underground in 105-degree heat in two inches of water makes $700 per month. An unskilled worker who mucks the material on his hands and knees 400 meters from the mine face to the adit makes $200 a month. A migratory worker sustaining a family in the homeland is probably sustaining another family at the mine face. Wages have to go up, but they can't because the companies don't earn their cost of capital.

According to the majority of South Africans, social take—taxes and royalties—has to go up, but can't because companies don't earn their cost of capital.

Prices have to go up. Platinum and palladium prices can go up because their utility to users is so high. It goes into high-carat jewelry. Platinum goes up a smokestack. Mostly, it goes out a tailpipe.

It costs $200—the cost of a catalytic converter in a new car—to give us the air quality we enjoy today. There's a social consensus in favor of stricter air-quality standards. If the price of platinum and palladium doubled, the catalytic converter would cost $400 in a $27,000 new car; the demand impact would be de minimus.

LJ: We all know the often-quoted phrase that most of the gold ever mined in the world is still sitting in purified form on the surface in one form or the other. Platinum and palladium are different; they are consumed. I agree with Rick.

I would go one step further regarding South Africa. It's not just the economics that don't work; it's the country itself. It's a balloon resting on pins. I see platinum and palladium as speculation on South Africa going up in flames, which is an easy bet to take now. I'm sorry for the South Africans, but it's a bad situation with no easy way out.

TGR: There's been a lot of talk about the dearth of young, qualified people coming up to take a place in management teams. Has the next generation of managers—and investors, for that matter—left the sector? If so, what will happen?

MK: There's a significant age gap in our industry. When I was taking geology courses at university, our professor would ask why we were taking this class. There were no jobs. He recommended we go into computers, and a lot of people did.

Unfortunately, good management teams are very difficult to come by. Only 1 in 3,000 projects ever becomes an economic mine, and I'd say investing in the right people is more important than any other factor.

LJ: This scarcity makes the investor's job a little easier. Just type the CEO's name in Google and look up his history. Has he done this before? Has he succeeded? Was he an accountant or a used car salesman? Google is one of our primary triage tools.

People is the first of Doug Casey's famous Eight Ps. If I hear about a story that fits our general criteria, the first thing I look at is management and directors. If I recognize the name of someone who has lied to me or whom I don't trust, I don't even look at the project.

TGR: New people coming up need to get experience by being in a successful project. Are there enough successful projects that they're learning how to do it?

LJ: I don't necessarily agree with that angle. All experience is good experience. A person can learn a lot from working for a company that does something wrong. It's having lots of experience, both good and bad, that is so important. The problem is that, unless you get very lucky, you need to have experience to really call shots well, and there are not enough people out there with the decades of experience needed.

On the bright side, because there is money in the field now, geology departments are no longer shutting down; enrollment is up. Supply is improving, but it will be another 5 to 10 years before the supply of highly experienced personnel really improves.

RR: Let's personalize it for your readers. There are three analysts in the room: an old one and two young ones. I guarantee you that, as a consequence of the bear market they just experienced, the two younger analysts will make their readers more money with less risk in the next bull market.

Youth isn't enough. You need to have a decade under your belt so that you have lived through the changes. Marin and Louis just lived through the kind of challenges I lived through in the 1980s. They now have the two things needed to survive in this racket: legs and scars.

MK: He's not joking about the scars.

RR: The transfer of the mantle from the Doug Caseys and Rick Rules of the world to the Marin Katusas and Louis Jameses is under way. The batons are being passed.

TGR: Is the bear market making a better generation of investors? Will they be more patient, have more perspective given what they've been through?

MK: If they stick with it. It's all about timeframe and perspective. The bear market will wash out a lot of investors; do not allow yourself to become a victim. But as Rick said, investors have to mitigate risk to stay alive until the next leg in the bull market.

RR: You're wrong there, Marin. You have to thrive. The year 2000, which was the market bottom, was one of the best investment years of my life. And 2001 was even better, as was 2002.

A bear market is when you make your money. You don't get to put it in your pocket until things turn, but you make your money by thriving in bear markets. You don't thrive in bull markets. You cash the checks. It's very different.

LJ: I expect this will be a painful experience for a lot of people. Some will learn a lesson, but it will be the wrong lesson. The lesson will be: Don't invest in commodities; they're too risky. That lesson will stick until the prices go bananas again, when they'll give it another try and get taken to the cleaners again.

To buy low and sell high, investors have to be able to sell high, which means they are expecting people to act irrationally when prices are very high—which means they didn't learn the lesson. It's unfortunate for our world that human nature is so, but it is so, and investors who ignore the opportunities this creates don't do anyone any favors.

TGR: Marin, going back to energy, there's been a lot in the media about the International Energy Agency (IEA) report about energy independence in North America. Will we be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas?

MK: North America is already the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Unfortunately, so are the Russians.

The report said that if these eight assumptions happen the way we hope, America will become almost energy independent. The media forgot about the eight assumptions, and they got rid of the word "almost."
The US has done a great job of bringing North American innovation to the shale industry, but the industry has many other challenges to work through.

TGR: Is Saudi Arabia still the Saudi Arabia of oil? Its wells are getting long in the tooth, and the country is building nuclear plants for domestic use.

MK: We're all asking that question. The Ghawar oil field has been producing oil since before Elvis hit the scene and today produces about half of Saudi Arabia's oil. There is significant risk in relying on these old elephant deposits that have been producing for more than 50 years.

RR: I agree. What has happened in the US, and to a lesser degree Canada, is unique because our competitive markets still work. For example, 50 or 60 competitors at Eagle Ford tried and failed using various completion techniques, each time getting better and better. Ultimately, Eagle Ford was an extremely messy success.

In most of the world, there's one quasi-state oil company looking at a basin. There's no competition trying different solutions. Exporting American or Canadian technology doesn't work without exporting the messiness of the North American energy-exploration business.

Marin, would exporting technology from Eagle Ford work in Argentina's Vaca Muerta Shale?

MK: It would take billions of dollars to make it work at Vaca Muerta. A junior company with a $10 million market cap and $500,000 to make management's salary and payment on their BMWs will never be able to develop this billion-dollar shale potential. It will require a big company, like a Chevron.

TGR: We heard a lot about the potential for crowdfunding to save the resource sector by funding more companies. True?

MK: I'd like to make sure that all of your readers stay the hell away from crowdfunding for the resource sector. I've heard it works OK in the tech sector and among the let's-make-a-movie crowd, where all that is needed is to raise $150,000 for something that may or may not work.

In the resource sector, real exploration cannot be done for $2-3 million. If people want to invest in the sector, go to someone with a track record, someone who knows what he's doing. Subscribe to Louis' newsletter and educate yourself. Stay the hell away from crowdfunding for the resource sector.

RR: The last thing the sector needs is more companies. The idea that the crowd would invest $3 million in a de novo project when there are companies out there that have spent $80 million on an existing project, yet have a $6 million market cap is the most counterproductive activity that one could imagine. If there are 3,000 public companies doing exploration on a global basis, we don't need another 300. We need 2,000 fewer.

LJ: It's one thing to go directly to the masses with an art project that some snob at the National Endowment for the Arts turned down, but entirely another to do so for a mine project no knowledgeable investor will touch.

TGR: What myth would you want our readers to stop believing in?

LJ: I would like to dethrone the "grade is king" myth. It's not grade; it's margin. You can have an exceptionally high-grade deposit in an exceptionally expensive, difficult, or kleptocratic jurisdiction, and it won't work. You could have a water table that's so fluid that you spend more money pumping water than mining. There are so many things that can go wrong or add to costs. Too many people believe if a project is high grade, it has to make money. No, it doesn't. High margin is paramount, not grade.

MK: I think the myth that the commodity bull market is over is insane. We're nowhere near being over. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. This is when you start doing your homework and investing money.

RR: The idea that bear markets are bad and bull markets are good is bullshit. It's the other way around. Bear markets are good. Bull markets are bad.

LJ: Bullshit is a technical term.

TGR: I enjoyed talking with the three of you. Thanks.

Hungry for more insights like these? Want specific, actionable recommendations to accompany them? These are the kinds of exchanges that have made Casey Summits must-attend events for resource investors… not to mention why they consistently sell out.

If you missed the 3 Days with Casey Summit and its all-star lineup—

which included Ron Paul, Lacy Hunt, James Rickards, Catherine Austin Fitts, and Dr. Elizabeth Vliet, among many others—you can still listen in on every session… every breakout session… every Q&A… by preordering the Casey Summit Audio Collection. 

It includes all this plus images of any visual aids each speaker used. And if you order while they're in production, you'll enjoy substantial savings.  

Get all the details and reserve your copy—in CD or MP3 format—today.

The Headline Data that Financial Media Ignored on Wednesday

Wednesday was a wild trading session where we saw the largest intraday selloff in the S&P 500 E-Mini futures that we have seen in some time. Intraday price action was driven largely by statements made by Chairman Bernanke and the release of the Federal Reserve Meeting Minutes which saw some monster intraday moves and a large spike in the Volatility Index (VIX).

While the world is focused on when the Federal Reserve is going to taper their Quantitative Easing program and the impact those actions will have on financial markets, I wanted to look at another divergence in the economic data which is supported by market action.

Instead of trying to determine how or when the Federal Reserve will taper or end their monetary experiment, I wanted to juxtapose statements that were made today with the actual facts. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Recently, we have been told that the housing market is in the early stages of recovery. Unfortunately due to low interest rates housing has turned back into a speculative market. Consequently, a lot of so called fast money is flowing into housing which in many cases is either being purchased for rentals or by foreign investors as a speculative investment.

At present the housing market is not being driven by capital formation at the household level and data indicates that construction jobs are under pressure and affordability is reversing.

This first chart illustrates what has recently transpired in the 10 Year Treasury Yield.....Click here to read J.W. Jones' entire article and view his charts for "The Headline Data that Financial Media Ignored on Wednesday"


Let J.W. show you how to trade options for monthly income. Includes current setups.


FREE BOOK - Profitable Options Strategies for Monthly Income

Where is the Larger Bubble: the S&P 500 Index or U.S. Treasuries?

Today we have a plethora of companies reporting earnings and are moving through the 1st Quarter earnings season at a rapid pace. Thus far, earnings have been far from exciting and have made the previous 2013 forward earnings estimates laughable.

The only way we get to the proposed valuations is through multiple expansion which is simply going to require the Federal Reserve to continue to pump $85 billion into Treasury’s and MBS securities each month. I am confident they will comply.

There are a few analysts out there who are discussing the potential bubble forming in equities and other risk assets as Bernanke’s plan is working to the extent that asset prices are rising. However, even fewer analysts are pointing out that both retail and institutional money is constantly chasing yield at this point.

Simply take a look at the 2013 price action in high yield dividend paying stocks, high yield bonds, preferred stocks, and master limited partnerships. It is safe to say that a bubble has formed not just in equities, but in various fixed investments as well.

Consider the following chart of the S&P 500 Index (SPX) shown as the dotted trendline and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) shown as the solid black line.....Read the entire article "Where is the Larger Bubble: the S&P 500 Index or U.S. Treasuries"


Click here to Download the 'NEW' Iron Condor Trading Strategy

Gold vs. S&P 500 – Where is the Value?

This past week we received the final 4th Quarter GDP number which came in at 0.39%. The total 4th Quarter growth was terrible, plain and simple. Based on the performance in the equity markets that we have seen thus far in the 1st Quarter of 2013 investors would expect strong GDP growth. However, the only thing spurring stock market growth is the constant humming of Ben Bernanke’s printing press.

The real economy and the stock market are no longer strongly correlated. Essentially, they are meaningless. How do you evaluate risk when Treasury linked interest rates are artificially being held down by the Federal Reserve? How do you evaluate earnings growth estimates when most government based statistics are manipulated or “smoothed” to perfection?

My final argument to anyone who is a true believer that the stock market is representative of the economy is a very simple premise. If the stock market is the economy, how does the stock market evaluate small business earnings growth when most small businesses are not publicly traded? It is a simple question, but I have yet to find a sell side analyst that can work around it with facts......Read More.


Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

Silver Suffers The Most From Bernanke And What Is Next

Test drive our video analysis and trade idea service for only $1.00

While the exchange traded funds for gold and copper fell today due to investors expressing disappoint at the modest response of the Federal Reserve to declining economic growth, it was silver that was off the most.

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) fell in trading today by 0.89%. IPath Dow Jones Copper (JJC) dropped 1.89%.  Plunging the deepest was iShares Silver Trust (SLV), off by 2.14%.

Traders were hoping for more aggressive action by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. But that will not come until after the November elections in the United States. Remember that Quantitative Easing 2 did not begin until November 2010, though it was announced at the Jackson Hole economic policy summit in August of 2010.

Silver is in what would seem to be the “sweet spot” between gold and copper.  Almost all of gold is used for investment or decorative purposes.  Almost all of The Red Metal goes for industrial needs.   For silver, it comes almost down right in the middle between commercial and a commodity for investments or jewelry.  The charts below show the trading relationship for each of the exchange traded funds when paired against each other.

Even though silver has a much higher industrial usage, the SLV moves along with the GLD.   As a result, it soared during Quantitative Easing 2.  Obviously, the charts reveal that most of the trading is from speculators as the JJC should move in an inverse relationship with the GLD.  That is due to gold being used almost entirely for non-industrial end uses while copper is used almost industrial for industrial uses.

Up slightly for the week as traders thought more dramatic economic stimulus efforts would result from the Federal Open Market Committee meeting  other than an extension until the end of the year for Operation Twist, the SLV is down for the last month, quarter, six months and 52 weeks of market action.  Year to date, the SLV is off by 1.48%.

For the last year, however, the SLV is down 33.35%.  Volume was up today, with the SLV below its 20 day, 50 day and 200 day moving averages.  In the most obvious trend, it is trading much lower under its 200 day day moving average at 11.67% down than underneath the 20 day moving average, beneath it by only 0.17%.  The only move worth noting in the technical indicators for silver were the long engulfing green bodies last week after Treasury Secretary Geithner’s  gloomy testimony on The Hill and more bad economic news from the US peaked buying as traders thought Quantitative Easing 3 was coming.

If traders long on silver are looking for help from Bernanke, it will not be coming until after the November election, though it could be announced when he speaks later this month at Jackson Hole.

Chris Vermeulen


Just click here to sign up for Chris' Newsletter and free market videos

Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

How To Position Yourself for a 10 Year Pattern Breakout

As mentioned last Friday just before things took a dive on the weekend, a look at the major market indices did not look promising. If we take an even longer term look and examine the monthly charts we can see that The S&P 500 as well as the Dow Jones have been approaching multi decade rising channel resistance lines. Further, they also appear to be forming bearish rising wedge patterns.

Monthly Long Term Chart Analysis & Thoughts....

As many of my longer term subscribers can attest to, I always preach that technical analysis is one part art and one part science: you can never be completely certain on what the outcome of a pattern is going to be. However, we can use historical analysis to make better investments. The great American Novelist Mark Twain probably said it best in that “history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes”. Regarding a rising wedge pattern, we know that roughly two thirds of the time they will break to the downside. This also means that one third of the time they break to the upside.

In accomplishing our goal of capital growth we must do a number of things. We must make returns on our investments, we must protect our investments, and we must limit our losses. While all three aspects work in tandem with each other, there are times when focus must be allocated to one specific approach.

Regarding the current technical setup, I’m not so focused on the 67% chance that these wedges will break to the downside, but more so the impact of each outcome on the average Joe’s portfolio and mom and pop businesses. The S&P 500 and the Dow are approaching long term resistance lines that have been in place for decades. If we do break to the downside, which I suspect we will, there could be a very significant sell off with consequences that no one can predict at this point though I mention some things in the chart above. Alternatively, there is significant overhead resistance in the various indices, and I don’t believe an upside break would be too monumental.

That being said, I always like to keep an open outlook and wait for the right opportunity. I’m trying to think of scenarios that would prelude further upside action and I really am not coming up with much. As evidenced by the completion of the recent 5 wave uptrend on the S&P that coincided nicely with the various quantitative easing policies, Ben Bernanke and the fed have had less and less impact. I truly can’t see many fiscal developments that would prompt any significant bullish action.

The only scenario I really think that could pump up equities is a series of positive earnings announcements. A lot of expectations, earnings numbers, guidance, etc… have been revised downwards over the last couple of quarters, so there is the opportunity for some positive surprises that could lead to some bullish price action. In absence of such a scenario, I really can’t think of much else that would prompt a run up.

Look at these charts of positive and negative earnings surprises… and the dates and remember what happened following this negative data....

Positive Earnings Surprise

Negative Earnings Surprise

That being said, I am recommending two courses of action. For those steadfast bulls, lock in some profits and/or buy some protection. Missing out on some of the upside is a lot better than losing some of the gains you have fought so hard for over the past couple of years. For the more aggressive traders and investors, start following my updates a little more regularly as I foresee many shorting opportunities coming up in the future. As many of you know, sell offs are often quick and abrupt, and timing is extremely important when playing the downside.

Further, trading could get very volatile in the near future. Historically, and even more so looking forward as August and September have been very costly for the average investor. Our focus will be in taking the highest probability trades that offer the best risk to reward scenarios. There will be times when we miss trades, and times when they’re not timed perfectly. But, as those who have been with me for a while can attest to, patience pays off in the long run....

Join my Free Market Analysis & Trade Idea Newsletter > Now at The Gold & Oil Guy

Chris Vermeulen

Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

Gold Prices Are Set for Further Decline

In the not so distant past arguing that precious metals prices were setup to fall generally elicited a response which was not real pleasant. In fact, during gold’s infamous bull market rally on several occasions I called for pullbacks which regardless of the accuracy of my call generated hate mail that seemingly never ended.

Fast forward to the present and hardcore gold bugs remain transfixed on the idea that precious metals must rise. The gold bull market has ended, at least for now and those still holding the bag are looking at large losses from the all time highs set back in 2011.

These same gold bugs will cite a litany of reasons why gold should be moving higher from the unprecedented printing of money by global central banks to the deficit spending and eventual fiscal day of reckoning facing most Western nations. I do not disagree with the gold bugs that in the long run gold prices will rally above the all time highs, but in the short to intermediate term there are several forces which have the potential to drive gold prices lower.

Gold prices cannot rise continually,regardless of the macro-economic backdrop. Nothing, not even Apple Computer (AAPL) or Priceline.com (PCLN) will rise forever. Eventually prices will come back down to earth and revert to the long term mean. It has happened in gold and it will happen to Apple Computer and Priceline.com at some point in the future, it is simply a matter of time.

Before I discuss my reasoning as to why gold and silver are likely to pullback in the intermediate term, I need to remind readers that I remain long term bullish of precious metals. While the long term remains bright, the short term is especially murky and dark.

The first primary concern for gold bugs should be the price behavior of the U.S. Dollar Index recently. The Dollar has rallied sharply higher after carving out a higher low on the daily chart (bullish). The Dollar is on the verge of breaking out above a major descending trendline on the daily chart. Once that breakout to the upside has occurred it will become likely that the recent highs will be tested and possibly taken out. The daily chart of the Dollar Index is shown below.

Dollar Index Daily Chart

The U.S. Dollar’s price action shown above is not indicative of bearish expectations. In fact, I would argue that the Dollar is, and likely will remain in a bull market in the short and intermediate time frames. However, it is important to recognize that strong periods of volatility will persist as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will continue to try to break the Dollar’s rally as it tries to grind higher.

The Federal Reserve hates deflation, and a stronger Dollar will push risk assets like equities lower and right now that is not part of the Federal Reserve’s election playbook. QE III will likely be announced at some point in the future as an attempt to break the Dollar’s rally and to put a floor underneath stock prices.

The Federal Reserve has used QE I and QE II to help prevent economic disaster. Recently “Operation Twist” has also been used to increase liquidity while keeping the bullish game going. Low interest rates and additional easing adjustments have staved off disaster before and they will likely be utilized again by the Federal Reserve.

Ultimately the free market and cycles will exert their will and the Federal Reserve will be left helpless. The day where monetary easing has no major impact is coming, but we are not quite there just yet.

In addition to the strength in the Dollar Index, the gold miners have been under major selling pressure. In fact, the gold miners have recently broken down out of a major consolidation zone that will likely lead to lower prices in the near term.

Unless gold miners can regain the breakdown level on a major reversal this coming week, the most we can hope for is a backtest of the support trendline sometime in the near future once the miner’s become significantly oversold. The weakness in the miners is just another example as to why lower prices for gold appear to be likely in the short to intermediate time frames. The weekly chart of the gold miners ETF is shown below.

Gold Miner’s (GDX) Weekly Chart

The gold miners are likely to lead equity markets lower in the near term, but lower prices for gold miners is certainly not positive for gold either. Obviously there are several economic factors which could still see gold prices working higher such as a collapse of the Eurozone, however at this moment the likelihood of that outcome in the short to intermediate term is not likely.

The European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve are not going to give up that easily. The process of admitting defeat will take time and global central banks will print money until they feel they have papered over the issue. It is the culmination of either QE III or other monetary easing around the world that will eventually move gold back above the all time highs. Unfortunately the short term price action of gold will most certainly remain under selling pressure barring any major unexpected announcements. The daily chart of gold futures is shown below.

Gold Futures Daily Chart

As shown above, I believe that short term targets to the downside are likely somewhere in the 1,475 – 1,525 price range. I think gold will find a major bottom near these levels and a strong bounce will play out. For long term buyers, I would take advantage of the forthcoming pullback. However, I would be mindful that further selling is quite possible before gold finds a major bottom.

As I said before, the longer term is bright for gold. However, the short to intermediate term will likely see more selling pressure. Until either the Dollar tops or some form of major quantitative easing is announced, I would anticipate lower prices in the yellow metal.

In the near term gold does not look attractive, but the longer term the catalysts for a major move above recent highs are present. The real question has become when and where will the Dollar top? When the Dollar tops and gold finds a major bottom, the potential for a monster move higher will become likely.

Until then, risk remains high.

Looking for a Simple ONE Trade Per Week Trading Strategy?
If So Join www.Option Trading Signals.com today with our 14 Day Trial

J.W. Jones

The Federal Reserve, Gold, the S&P 500, & the Retail Mindset

The recent rally has been breathtaking, however the majority of investors have missed out on a large portion of these gains as significant levels of cash have been either moved to bond funds or taken out of equity markets consistently during this rally. Let’s face it, financial markets around the world are not what they once were.

U.S. equity markets in particular are manipulated by high frequency trading which is wreaking havoc in the marketplace in terms of potential short term volatility expansions and “flash crashes” that can be isolated to one underlying stock.

In addition to the high frequency trading robots, the Federal Reserve is equally involved in the direct manipulation of financial markets through record easing adjustments. The Federal Reserve has unleashed massive amounts of liquidity while keeping interest rates incredibly low which has produced an environment where the risk-on attitude permeates the landscape.

As a basic example of the failure of recent Federal Reserve policies and their impact generally on the valuation of various underlying assets, I submit for consideration to readers a 20 year price chart of the U.S. Dollar Index.

 20 Year U.S. Dollar Index Chart

It boggles the mind to consider that Chairman Bernanke routinely denies that the Federal Reserve has failed to maintainwhat he calls “price stability.” When looking at the chart of the valuation of the U.S. Dollar against a basket of foreign currencies, most 5^th graders if given the context would proclaim that the Federal Reserve has failed in their objective to maintain price stability.

As time passes and the financial crisis moves further into the rear view mirror, average Americans have varied views about the economy, the stock market, and trust in their government. For most Americans, the stock market does not make sense because they view the stock market and the economy as the same thing. Sophisticated investors understand that stocks and the economy are two totally separate issues, particularly with the amount of manipulation that has been taken place since 2007.

This manipulation has not gone unnoticed by the average American. Now more than ever regular people are not only distrustful of domestic financial markets, but they do not trust Wall Street, and for good reason. In light of this, data compiled during the recent uptrend suggests that retail investors have been pulling money out of equities for weeks even though prices continue to move higher. The chart shown below courtesy of ZeroHedge.com illustrates the recent trend.

U.S. Domestic Mutual Fund Flows

The chart above shows the price of SPY represented as the black line and equity fund inflows/outflows as the red area. As can be seen above, retail investors have been pulling massive amounts of capital out of equity based mutual funds over the past few months as equity prices have rallied. The retail crowd, commonly referred to as sheep or courtesy of Goldman Sachs “muppets,” are selling into the rally.

So why is the retail crowd selling? They do not believe that this rally will last because the real world around them is arguing in the face of everything that this rally stands for. Gasoline prices are crippling the lower and middle classes further reducing their disposable income. Higher food and energy prices paired with job scarcity and serious concerns have begun to mount.

The average retail investor believes the game is rigged at this point and the everyday investor is only helping Wall Street bankers fund their lavish lifestyles. Ultimately, the retail crowd likelybelieves that the only way to win the game is to simply not play.

Will time prove the supposed sheep wrong? Statistically one would think so, but in this case the retail folks may just be right. Headwinds surround the global macroeconomic landscape. Europe is moving into a recession which is being exacerbated by austerity measures. Data came out yesterday (Thursday) that the PMI in several European countries and China contracted. Ireland missed growth targets and central banks around the world continue to print unprecedented levels of fiat currency as if printing money and creating more debt will solve a debt problem.

All of these issues are concerns, but ultimately price is the final arbiter in the world of flickering ticks. From these eyes there are two possible outcomes for the price action in the S&P 500. The first outcome which I believe is more likely is a test of the 2011 highs which results in a snap-back rally that takes us deeper into the 1,420 – 1,440 resistance zone. The chart below demonstrates the bullish potential outcome.

SPX Bullish Outcome

Price action at some point will backtest the 2011 highs and the reaction at that point will be critical. Generally speaking price action does not break a key support or resistance level on the first attempt. Usually the 2^nd or 3^rd attempt will result in a break of a key support / resistance level.

In this case, a test in coming days would likely result in a bounce and reversion to the previous trend. A possible, albeit unlikely outcome would be a break below the 2011 support zone which would then come close to triggering a trend change. The daily chart below demonstrates the bearish potential outcome.

SPX Bearish Outcome

I do firmly believe that the U.S. Dollar Index will hold clues about the future for the price action of equities. According to cycle analysis, the Dollar should come into is daily cycle low sometime in the next few weeks, if not sooner.

From that low, we should see another move higher for the Dollar Index which I anticipate will test the recent highs near 81. The daily chart of the U.S. Dollar Index futures is shown below.

U.S. Dollar Index Futures Daily Chart

If my expectations are somewhat accurate, the short term weakness in the Dollar will assist stocks and risk assets in a move above recent highs. In the case of the S&P 500, a move to key resistance at 1,420 – 1,450 could occur.

Readers should keep in mind that weakness could be disguised as just a consolidation near the 20 period moving average which has occurred in the past when analyzing the Dollar Index. However, I would not rule out one more leg lower before the Dollar finds a bottom.

Gold, silver, and the miners have been under selling pressure for some time and are likely due for a bounce to the upside. The weakness in the Dollar discussed above would allow precious metals and miners to work off some of the short term oversold conditions that we are seeing presently. The daily chart of gold futures is shown below.

Gold Futures Daily Chart

After a move higher into or around the $1,700 / ounce price level for gold, I believe that another leg lower will be quite likely.

Conclusion

Readers should be mindful that the 1^st Quarter will end on March 30^th for financial markets. Window dressing and portfolio painting are likely to occur next week. I would not be at all surprised to see the tape painted to the upside during the final week of March after this brief pullback that we witnessed on Thursday and Friday morning.

Money managers want to show off their returns while demonstrating ownership of key names that drove performance during the quarter such as AAPL. I expect the price action on Friday and the rest of next week to have relatively light volume and a bias to the upside.

Barring any major financial news or geopolitical event, I do not expect to see price action work below the 2011 highs in the near term. The possibility cannot be totally ruled out, but it would seemingly be a rare occurrence to see a major support level break down on the first back test attempt. We may see lower prices early next week, but if the 2011 highs hold the bulls remain in control in the short term.

The real question readers should ask themselves is if prices do extend higher and we reach my target resistance zone for the S&P 500, will the retail crowd jump in and push prices higher, or will the banks be trading with each other as a major top forms? In coming days and weeks we should find out once and for all just who the real muppets truly are.

Over the past 5 months subscribers of my options trading newsletter have won 19 out of 20 trades. That’s a 95% win rate,  pocketing 294% in gains focusing only on low risk credit spread options strategies.

If you are looking for a simple one trade per week trading style then be sure to join Option Trading Signals.com today with our 14 Day Trial

J.W. Jones