Barry Ritholtz on the ' Gold Narrative'

Presumably alerted by the failure of gold to break to new lows and the non-confirmation delivered by the gold stocks last week, Barry Ritholtz now believes gold could be due for a bounce that might be playable for short term traders. However, Mr. Ritholtz is also convinced that once said bounce is over with, the recent cyclical bear market will resume.

The reality is of course that neither Mr. Ritholtz, nor anyone else actually knows the future. Therefore, he cannot know whether the bear market is or isn't over. However, judging from the remainder of his post, he actually seems to think that the secular bull market in gold is over. In our opinion there is no evidence for that, and we will explain below why we think that he and others in the  long term bear camp are wrong.

Further below is the evidence marshaled by Mr. Ritholtz (actually, apart from the technical analysis he provides, it isn't really evidence at all – it reads like an unsupported opinion). To be sure, he does provide a link to a previous article of his that purports to discuss gold's fundamentals. We comment on this article (and its errors) further below. Contrary to Mr. Ritholtz's repeated assertions that he is an 'agnostic on gold', his tone reveals that he is indeed biased. Mr. Ritholtz is to our knowledge essentially an establishment figure with democratic leanings. Let us just note that socialists/democrats don't like gold much and generally believe that central banking and fiat money are just fine. Here is what he writes about gold and the expected bounce:

 

“If you are a trader — and I no longer consider myself one — then you have to be wondering when Gold is going to bounce. It has plummeted on little inflation, a strong dollar and an improving economy. When the breathless narrative of hyper-inflation, collapsing fiat currency and end of the world failed to come about, Gold’s spectacular rise ended. Now, it has free-fallen so far that a counter-trend rally is over due.

How do the typical counter-trend rallies work? Well, the forced selling by margin clerks and futures traders becomes exhausted. A distraction may capture the investing community’s collective attention, allowing some stabilization to occur. As prices stop falling, the fear falling asset holders have been living with dissipates. A little bit of good news, a small reversal in price, and the prior (now discredited) narrative reasserts itself.

Note this scenario is non specific — we see it in stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate and yes, Gold. Apple will run this one day, AIG is already enjoying its turnaround, as all former high flyers do. And if the underlying business model improves, the turnaround could be for real, and the bounce morphs into a new sustainable uptrend.

Here comes the bad news: The bounce in a commodity like Gold — or its primary trading vehicle, GLD — is less likely to achieve that sort of happy ending. The bull market is broken, the prior narrative has utterly failed, and is no longer taken seriously, except by yellow metal jihadists and other assorted suckers.

 

 

(emphasis added)

So Mr. Ritholtz is completely unbiased about gold, but he considers any gold bulls that are still left 'yellow metal jihadists and other assorted suckers'. As a friend pointed out to us, this comes across as a racist and elitist in one fell swoop, almost a trifecta. In what way Mr. Ritholtz believes his analysis to be improved by making such insufferably arrogant comments we cannot say.

We have by the way no quibble at all with the short term trading call he makes (it seems well founded on technical grounds) and we also have no problem with someone having a bearish opinion on gold. It is true that a number of gold-bearish fundamentals have been in place in recent months, and we cannot be certain when the longer term outlook will finally trump these medium term bearish fundamentals.

However, what is the 'narrative' that Mr. Ritholtz believes to have failed? As he himself writes – we are not putting words into his mouth here – the 'narrative' as he understands it consisted of: “hyper-inflation, collapsing fiat currency and end of the world”. Since none of those things have come to pass (not yet, anyway), the secular gold bull market must be over.

That's his analysis? That gold requires a narrative about 'hyperinflation, collapsing fiat currencies and the end of the world' to remain in a bull market? If he actually believes that, then he knows very little about gold and would do better by not opining about it in public.

We must admit that there are a number of people in what is widely referred to as the 'gold community', who in spite of having their heart in the right place, are not necessarily very good gold analysts. Many stress facts that are really not all that relevant to the gold price (such as retail demand for gold coins, central bank buying/selling, primary supply/demand data, and so forth). There are also a few 'extremists' who indeed talk mainly about imminent hyperinflation and other end-of-the-world scenarios.

As readers of this blog probably know, we believe that we happen to have a pretty solid grasp of gold's fundamentals and what one's analysis should focus on (for a list of gold's fundamental drivers, see here, for an excellent summary of how the price of gold is determined see Robert Blumen's article here, and for a comprehensive analysis see Ronald Stoeferle's 'In Gold we Trust' reports here [2012] and here [2013]).

In short, neither imminent hyper-inflation, nor an imminent collapse of the fiat currency regime or any other end-of-the-world scenarios are actually required to be bullish on gold. In other words, this particular 'narrative' does not require 'reassertion' in order for gold prices to rise. It never was what drove gold's bull market in the first place.

 

Gold has no Fundamentals? Really?

So as to be fair to Mr. Ritholtz, we will also quote what he wrote in the article he pointed to as containing his fundamental analysis:

 

“We looked at Gold as a trading vehicle in the past, and identified the many ways it is different than assets like equities or bonds. Back in 2011, we noted that Gold is a trade, not a religion. During that presentation at the Agora conference in Vancouver, we discussed how commodities spike and collapse versus how equities roll over and break trend lines.

History shows Gold trades differently than equities. Why? It comes back to those fundamentals.

It has none.

This is not to say gold is not affected by Macro issues. But that is very different than saying Gld has a fundamental value, an intrinsic worth. It does not. That led to this heretical advice: Gold is not, and can never be, an investment. It has no true intrinsic value, no cash flow, no earnings, no coupon. no yield. What people call fundamentals are nothing more than broad macro analysis (and how have your macro funds done lately?). Gold is the ultimate greater fool trade, with many of its owners part of a collective belief theory rife with cognitive errors and bias.

I do not want to engage in Goldenfreude — the delight in gold bugs’ collective pain — but I am compelled to point out how basic flaws in their belief system has led them to this place where they are today. Gold does trade technically, and is especially driven by the collective belief system of the crowd. When that falter, well, you know what happens…”

 

(emphasis added)

Sure enough, gold has no yield, no conference calls, and no income statements (paraphrasing Jim Grant). That is actually the beauty of it. But that does not mean it 'has no fundamentals', nor does it mean that it 'cannot be an investment'. In fact, since gold is currently not employed as a medium of exchange, it is nothing but an investment asset – one with monetary characteristics to be sure. The remark about gold not possessing 'intrinsic value' is entirely superfluous, as nothing in the world has 'intrinsic value'. This is not a feature that is an exclusive characteristic of gold, as all value judgments are subjective. Hence the notion that anything could possess intrinsic value is mistaken. The way Mr. Ritholtz formulates it above suggests that he believes that while gold has no intrinsic value, other things actually might have it. That is not the case.

The 'macro' issues that are driving gold are indeed gold's 'fundamentals'. To deny this is tantamount to denying that any currency has fundamentals, but obviously, every currency can be analyzed fundamentally. The fact that gold has no yield can be traced back to the fact that it is the only currency that cannot be inflated by central banks and bears no counterparty risk (see also Ronald's 2013 gold report on this topic). It is the high quality of gold as a currency that is the reason why it has no yield (it is by the way possible to lend gold out, so it actually does have a yield – but that yield is so small as to be negligible).

With regards to 'greater fool trades' and the 'cognitive errors and biases' exhibited by investors, these are also not features that can be said to be specific characteristic of gold. They can be found to assert themselves in every type of investment asset. Was buying the Nasdaq at 5,000 points in March of 2000 an example of a 'greater fool' trade exhibiting the 'cognitive errors and biases' of the buyers? We would argue that it was.

In other words, all the things Ritholtz lists as characteristic of gold's allegedly 'non-existent' fundamentals are things that are not specific to gold in any way.

Just about the only thing we agree with is that gold traditionally tops and bottoms in a manner that is different to how equities tend top and bottom out. That is however not exactly big news either. Earlier in his article Mr. Ritholtz makes a few additional points that are also worth commenting on:

 

1) Gold had a huge rally came as the dollar collapsed 41% from 2001 to 2007. The Dollar is now at a three year high. Why would that be a fundamental positive for Gold?

2) Quantitative easing has been going on int he US for 4 years, and worldwide for a while. What is the basis of Hathaway’s assumption that this is a net positive for Gold? We have so few examples of this phenomena that I do not understand his analysis here.

3) Cyprus is a terrible example of “governments’ new confiscatory inclinations.” Readers need to recall that Cyprus banks were paying 6% in a zero interest rate environment. These were not “risk free checking accounts” but rather high yield, high risk trades. This “confiscation” as described by the usual paranoics was nothing more than a capital loss in a high risk trade. (about 16 months of interest payments).”

 

 

We would answer these as follows: a declining dollar is better for gold than a rising one, there is no question about that. However, the dollar's exchange rate is but one of many drivers of the gold price. If that were not the case, gold could never rally in non-dollar terms, but it certainly does. In fact, the biggest gold rallies in history happen to have coincided with a stable dollar.

'Quantitative easing' or better, money printing, is indeed fundamentally relevant for gold. As Steve Saville recently pointed out, it is not 'QE' as such that drives gold, but rather its negative effects, which usually only assert themselves with a lag. Even if one doesn't know what exactly those are, one actually doesn't really need to be au fait with monetary/economic theory in order to realize the following: It should be obvious on a very simplistic level that if the supply of one currency rises relative to that of another, the currency with the faster growing supply will in the long run decline in value against the one with the slower supply growth. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Regarding Cyprus, we agree that the Cyprus affair as such is correctly characterized by Mr. Ritholtz. However, the fact that depositor 'haircuts' have been made the new 'template' of how future bank insolvencies will be dealt with does strike us as relevant for gold. Big depositors have very good reasons to worry about the safety of fractionally reserved banks and hence the safety of their deposits. A number of them may well consider holding gold a good alternative – after all, it is essentially a form of cash and it is certain that no central banker can print more of it. Gold in allocated accounts is moreover an insurance against the failure of banks.

 

The Long Term Bullish Case

So why is there still a long term bullish case for gold? The main point to be considered is that the central bank backstopped fiat money system and the fractionally reserved banks operating in it have created a huge debt overhang. To see how extreme this has become since the dollar's last tie to gold was cut in 1971, one must ponder this chart of total credit market debt compared to GDP:

 


 

total credit market debt and GDPAll credit market liabilities compared to GDP since 1971 – via St. Louis Fed – click to enlarge.

 


 

Although what is compared here is a stock (debt) to a flow (GDP), this chart does tell us something about the economy's ability to use debt productively, as well as its ability to service it.

It is well-known that the true liabilities of the regulatory democracies, resp. welfare/warfare states, vastly exceed even this enormous debt mountain. In fact, these so-called 'unfunded liabilities' are so enormous that everybody knows that there will either be a default or they will be 'inflated away'. Moreover, any honest assessment of the fractionally reserved banking system and its uncovered deposit liabilities must come to the conclusion that the 'end of the line' has essentially been reached.

As Ronald Stoeferle notes in his recent gold report, it is therefore a near certainty that governments will engage in various forms of 'financial repression' in order to 'fix' the situation in a manner that is regarded as politically painless. This almost guarantees that things will get even worse, as capital formation will stop dead in its tracks.

The current monetary system essentially faces two possibilities: either there will be massive deleveraging on a scale never before seen (commensurate to the build-up of the debt overhang), or it will continue to inflate. Guess what: massive deleveraging is simply politically intolerable. It can perhaps be forced on a few hapless smaller victims like Greece and Portugal, but no-one can force it on, say, France or the US. On the contrary, the current orthodoxy of central banking has one, and only one, solution for the dilemma: print more money.

As long as this is the case, we can expect the fundamental drivers of the long term gold bull market to remain intact. This time, no Volcker will ride to the rescue either. What he did simply can no longer be done. If you want to know why, compare the stock of debt of 1979 (approx. 150% of GDP) to that of today (approx. 360% of GDP).

One day we may even get to see those parts of the 'narrative' play out that Mr. Ritholtz deems to be an impossibility, namely the collapse of the current monetary system. Contrary to what one may think, it would not be a big deal historically speaking. Currency systems have imploded throughout history, and the current one is a prime candidate for that fate, given that it is entirely based on a mixture of faith and coercion. We certainly don't believe that eventuality to be imminent, but we think it is almost inevitable in the long run.  However, let us once again stress: this has no relevance to the secular gold bull market's likely progression over the next few years. We happen to believe that gold's price will eventually rise to levels that would be considered absurd today. When gold was 'cut loose' from the dollar in 1971 at $35 per ounce, a price of $850 looked like an absurdity as well, and yet it eventually happened.

Of course, right now, a cyclical bear market is underway, so let us not get carried away here. As noted above, we cannot be sure to what extent the tree will need to be shaken before the bull market resumes, but we do feel quite confident that the long term bullish case remains perfectly intact.

 


 

 

 

Thank you for your support!

To donate Bitcoins, use this address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

 

Print Friendly

 

15 Responses to “Gold – Has the ‘Narrative’ Failed?”

  • Andrew Judd:

    I have to fully agree that it is totally crazy or dishonest to say that Gold has no fundamental value. It is of course a very highly valueable metal with some very unique properties. However when something like 99% of the Worlds above ground Gold is collected or hoarded it does become very difficult to put a price on Gold today, because sentiment will very easily drive the price downwards very quickly and if sentiment becomes majorly damaged it is difficult for anything short of an argmageddon scenario or very high inflation prospects to drive it back up again.

    Either way however, if QE is reduced it is going to very majorly impact Gold. The Goldbug case has been essentially that QE will never be reduced and will never end. Quite possibly QE could be almost totally unwind in a few years time while we remain at ZIRP with QE being used rather like interest rate changes were used.

    In such a scenario the only difference will be that longer term interest rates have risen, bond yields and mortgage costs are higher but the economy will still be very likely to be in a very poor condition.

    Most of the players, including me seemed to have got the idea that QE was going to cause significant inflation with some more certain of that than others. Effectively we were all totally wrong.

    Meanwhile:

    ****On this board and elsewhere i have asked many times where this idea that inflation is increasing amounts of money, rather than rising prices, comes from, and nobody has ever answered me. Does anybody have a reference for that please?**** Thanks.

  • george_m6002:

    The only good thing in your article is that you call him “Mr. Ritholtz” and not “Ritholtz”; at least, your mom learned you to be polite.

  • GaryP:

    I disagree with nothing said here and would assert that, generally speaking, only two groups of people agree with Ritholtz: 1) Members, or hangers on (Ritholtz may be either) of the ruling clique currently looting the world economy before it collapses, 2) the totalitarians, or their followers, that are the enablers or dupes of the first group. These two groups, it should be remembered, are a very large and powerful community encompassing the media, most academics, and most opinion drivers, as well as government functionaries and government dependents (most of the populace). There is a huge constituency that must, for there to be any hope for the scam (and/or the gravy train) to continue, assert that sound money is not only unnecessary, but evil. This will not change unless and until these two groups are removed from control of the levers of power and influence and/or awakened by the end of the state as the font of all blessings.
    However, I will make a point that, while it does not not diminish the utility of gold as a store of value and a source of discipline underlying a sound currency, makes me less enamored of holding physical gold or silver.
    As the inevitable collapse of the current fiat regime approaches, the desperate efforts of our current rulers to maintain their power (and lifestyle) will become more frantic.
    It is virtually certain that the ownership of gold (and perhaps silver) will again become illegal (as it was for around 40 years) in the US and probably generally throughout the developed world.
    Owning gold may be a hedge against financial disaster over the short run but will not carry you through the end of the current fiat regime (unless you are possess enough to use it to purchase power sufficient to protect you from whatever government structure replaces our current system).
    Using gold as the basis of a sound currency may eventually be the chosen solution to rebuilding the economy (and the associated political system) for it is a certainty that a sound currency is the foundation for a healthy economy which is, in turn, an essential requirement for a functional political system. However, getting from were we are to that happy land is neither a certain nor a simple path. Things will get much worse before they get better and the possibility of any living soul seeing that day seems very small to me.
    Owning gold, in a rational world, would certainly be a wise choice. I just wish I saw any sign of rationality in our society.

  • worldend666:

    Regarding gold having no yield, this is not really so. You can lend gold and earn a yield, just like you can lend cash. No assets earn a yield when they are kept locked in the basement. Equities earn a yield only by virtue of the fact the investor has parted with his savings.

    • jimmyjames:

      In short, neither imminent hyper-inflation, nor an imminent collapse of the fiat currency regime or any other end-of-the-world scenarios are actually required to be bullish on gold. In other words, this particular ‘narrative’ does not require ‘reassertion’ in order for gold prices to rise. It never was what drove gold’s bull market in the first place.

      *******

      Want to say bingo but wont-
      Prior 08…No QE- very little printing of actual FRN’s- credit expansion flew–gold flew–bonds flew-
      Default risk (interpreted by smart money).. plain and simple booted gold and bonds higher during that period-
      Ritholtz al et al still think that the dreaded “tapering talk” will long term negatively effect gold- have it completely assbackwards-
      Debt/default is the enemy/friend of gold and the amount of available fiat money to pay off the debt in the system is just way too tiny-

    • Yes, I did note in passing that is is possible to lend gold out and earn a small yield- but it is the lowest yield paid by any currency. Moreover, the gold lending business is very exclusive. You can only enter into this business if you have control over a big stash of 400 oz. good delivery bars, and preferable connections to central banks as well.

  • Keith Weiner:

    sorry, not one’s creditor, one’s debtor.

    • jimmyjames:

      Have to wonder if Ritholtz and Gartman ever shared a hotel room together-
      No bias in any of their gold price prognosis- their rants seem to border on some sort of cultish belief that hoarding the shiniest rock on the planet is pure evil-
      Witches were burned during such mass hysteria-

  • Keith Weiner:

    Pater: good smackdown. I would add one thing to the bull case for gold. If indeed they allowed colossal (indeed catastrophic) deleveraging, then every bank depositor and every bond holder would take massive losses. That would make a very compelling case for buying gold, simply to avoid being wiped out by the default of one’s creditor.

    • Indeed, this is a good point. A deflationary collapse is likely to be just as, if not more bullish for gold as continued inflation, precisely because gold protects against the counterparty risks posed by the banking system

  • rodney:

    Mr. Ritholtz is indeed all those things (racist, elitist, establishment, democrat, and insufferably arrogant). Couldn’t care less about his ignorant remarks. Anyone and everyone should stay away from his useless blog.

    • To his credit though, he sent me tweet in which he noted that he felt that this was a thoughtful and well researched critique (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not). So he responded quite graciously.

Leave your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Support Acting Man

Archive

Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Oilprice.com

EWI

Realtime Charts

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

EWI