Posts tagged Gold

Analysis of the Icelandic Economic Collapse of 2008

The Mises Institute just released an e-book analyzing the root causes of the economic collapse in Iceland in 2008. I have just started reading it, but the authors are building a case of the usual suspects (Central Banks, fiat currency and economic planners) behind the debacle:

Deep Freeze: Iceland’s Economic Collapse

Failure analysis is an important part of learning. And, it’s cheaper to learn from other’s mistakes than to repeat them yourself. I like reading about these kinds of extreme events and what measures did and didn’t work to protect investment capital. As it were, Marc DeMesel did an analysis of how the Permanent Portfolio would have performed for Icelandic investors in 2008 here:

Permanent Portfolio in Iceland

Also there is an interesting book from FerFal that details what happened in his home country of Argentina. I reviewed it here and it contains some very interesting first-hand accounts of what happens when a currency does a swan dive:

Surviving the Economic Collapse

I’m not a doom and gloomer, but I do think that all portfolios should have some protection in place for sudden currency problems. It is often way too late to respond once the markets for a currency begin to go sour. You need protection in place well before and you must hold it at all times no matter what the market sentiment may be. This is why the 25% gold allocation in the Permanent Portfolio is so critical to have at all times in the allocation.

H/T to Lew Rockwell’s Mises Institute for this.

 

Gold ETFs and Gold Bubbles – Who Cares?

I’m seeing other articles on Gold ETFs (H/T Austen Heller) fueling a gold market bubble. I made comments about this in the recent past. My position is still the same which is that I don’t worry about it.

Why not?

Well the #1 reason is I don’t look at assets in isolation. Gold is just one part of the Permanent Portfolio. So let’s look at this quickly from a portfolio perspective and away from the realm of market prognosticators (which cannot predict the future).

Worst case scenario: Gold drops to $0.

How does that affect the portfolio? With a 25% allocation you are, at worst, down -25%.

But what are the odds of that happening? I’d say zero. Yes, I’m going on the record to state that gold will not approach $0. This is barring some amazing breakthrough in fusion technology. Or, an end of the world scenario where humans revert to a leather clad motorcycle gang nomadic life as we desperately try to escape the Thunder Dome. Even in that case, I doubt gold would be worthless.

Going further, even assuming gold becomes worthless (which is one of the most moronic statements I hear on this subject) what are the odds that your stocks or bonds wouldn’t go up to offset such an event? Pretty low. Again, an end of the world scenario comes to mind. But, why should some other investment portfolio be doing any better in this case?

But, let’s say the drop is -50% back to $700 an ounce (a -12.5% portfolio loss). Not great, but hardly a life destroying event for most I suspect. Again though, what are the chances the stocks and bonds couldn’t take up the slack? How does this -12.5% loss compare to the -30+% loss stock heavy portfolios took in 2008? Pot, meet kettle.

I don’t worry about this stuff. The Permanent Portfolio uses the 25% split because it protects you against catastrophic losses in any one part of the portfolio. The portfolio needs to be viewed as a package and not as assets in isolation. The portfolio doesn’t hold just gold. It holds stocks, bonds, cash and gold. A massive loss in one asset (like happened to stocks in 2008) was not a major event for the allocation. And, a massive gold crash won’t be either (already happened in the early 1980s with minimal effect).

Investors that need to worry about these catastrophic events are those with very concentrated exposure to individual investments. Gold bugs and stock bugs with heavy allocations to their pet assets are one group that face this risk. The reason we diversify and we hold all the assets, all the time, is to protect against these possibilities.

Stay diversified and don’t time the market. It’s the only strategy that works.

Have Gold ETFs Ruined Gold as an Asset Class?

Forum member “murphy_p_tposted an article from the Wall Street Journal:

Behind Gold’s New Glister: Miners’ Big Bet on a Fund

From the article:

…skeptics argue GLD could become a Godzilla-like beast if the gold rally reverses sharply. They say its buying has already turbo-charged gold prices, exposing the market, and legions of small investors, to a rapid fall. Smaller copycat funds add to the risk.

“We tell our clients to watch out for it, because it’s there, and it’s a real risk,” said Jeffrey Christian, founder of CPM Group, which advises major investors worldwide on gold…

This is a fair question. Have gold ETFs ruined the gold market? I don’t think so.

Gold ETFs were actually around when Harry Browne was still alive so their use in the Permanent Portfolio was considered. They are not the preferred way to hold gold in the Permanent Portfolio however.

But to the question. Yes, gold is more accessible now but it’s not likely to impact the results because people are still buying it for the same reasons they did when it was less accessible: protection against possible inflation.

I think blaming a gold ETF for the rise in gold prices is a bit of a stretch. It completely ignores the market reactions to overseas and domestic spending (welfare and warfare) which has historically been inflationary. It also ignores the unprecedented actions of the Fed after the housing bust to dump dollars into the falling market. This is not saying inflation is coming because there are good arguments for deflation. It’s just saying that the market’s reaction and jittery nature with buying gold is not totally unjustified given the past few years of market turmoil, banking failures, government spending, etc. This is hardly the fault of the Gold ETFs and I suspect gold prices would have gone up anyway even without an ETF around based on these incidents.

But this is an issue brought up by Rick Ferri in the Podcast I had with him. He made the same point about gold ETFs. My point is why doesn’t this apply to value stock investing strategies? Or how about just the stock market in general? The emergence of cheap stock index funds and ETFs has not ruined the markets has it?

If the gold prices plunge it’s not going to be because of a gold ETF. It’s going to be because the markets think that money is better invested somewhere else (stocks, bonds, T-bills, etc.). The gold ETF will be the poster boy for the fallout, but blaming it doesn’t make much sense. Even before the ETF existed gold purchases were routinely done by large institutional players and indivuduals. So gold trading is not a new phenomena for the markets and they carried on through ups and downs just fine.

But does a gold ETF impact the portfolio ideas and diversification? I don’t think so. Buy, hold and rebalance the assets. I don’t worry about a gold ETF affecting gold prices any more than I do a stock ETF affecting stock prices. Yes it made the asset more accessible, but that doesn’t mean the reasons people are buying it have changed.

If people want gold they want gold. If they want it in an ETF or a gold bar in safe deposit box it doesn’t matter any more than whether a stock investor wants a stock ETF or physical certificate in their filing cabinet. And ETF or no, the investors are going to buy that asset. In fact, these investment products exist and are popular because that’s what the markets wanted. Besides, gold has been popular in the past and in fact it had a much higher inflation adjusted price in the late 1970s/early 1980s (over $2200 in today’s dollars) when there was no gold ETF around at all. If ETFs are driving gold prices then how do we explain that?

Gold has always been a volatile asset. Same for stocks. Same for long term bonds. Nothing has changed. For a Permanent Portfolio investor it doesn’t matter anyway because we hold all the assets all the time and rebalance when needed. Gold prices in the portfolio have dropped almost 50% in the past with minimal impact on overall value. The following years the other assets more than made up for the losses. On the opposite side of the coin (pardon the pun), gold investors have been rewarded for holding the asset when stock investors have been severely beaten about the past decade. Every asset has its day in the sun and day in the dog house. This is why investors shouldn’t try to time the market and hold all the assets all the time no matter what they think may happen.

2010-11-18 – Interview with Rick Ferri on Gold and the Permanent Portfolio

Podcast for November 18th, 2010.

Topics

Rick Ferri of Portfolio Solutions discusses his perspective on gold, the Permanent Portfolio and answers questions about his own investment recommendations. Topics addressed:

Gold

Permanent Portfolio

Inflation

Credit Risk in Bonds

Show Links

Portfolio Solutions – Rick Ferri’s portfolio management firm.

Be sure to subscribe in iTunes to get podcasts automatically. Also be sure to rate the podcasts in the iTunes store:

http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/crawling-road-money-show/id400543437

RSS Feed:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/category/podcast/feed/

Rick Ferri’s Wrong Take on Gold

Canadian Couch Potato recently interviewed Rick Ferri who had some comments on gold.

He’s made these comments over the years but I think he misses the point or doesn’t want to get the point. Gold is just one asset in a diversified portfolio. It is not the only thing an investor should own. Gold should be used to diversify the unique risks that affect stocks and bonds. That risk is high inflation. Gold is unequaled in its ability to resist high inflation.

Gold offers powerful diversification against currency problems. You don’t need the end of the world for gold to provide diversification in a stock/bond portfolio. The stock market had essentially no real returns for the decade of the 1970s after inflation. Yet, gold helped provide real returns in a portfolio over this time and it didn’t require removing the Cosmoline from your buried AK-47 to battle roaming biker gangs.

In the 2000s we have had a massive growth of overseas and domestic spending which is inflationary despite the recent talk of deflation due to the housing market crash (Have your gas prices gone down over these years? How about your health insurance? School tuition? Me neither.). Yet, again the world did not end. Stocks however have turned in another decade of poor performance barely matching inflation even to today’s date. Adding some gold to a portfolio would have provided real returns over stocks and also reduced volatility improving risk adjusted returns overall.

You can take a bunch of bricks and pile them in your backyard and look at them every day and say, ‘Go up in value, go up in value.’ But you can’t say, ‘What kind of dividends are my pile of bricks going to pay me this year?’ Because it’s zero. How much interest am I going to get from my pile of bricks? None. Is my pile of bricks going to become two piles of bricks over the next 10 years? No, it’s going to be one pile of bricks a year from now, 10 years from now, and a hundred years from now. You’re just hoping that someone comes along who thinks that pile of bricks is worth much more than you paid for it. – Rick Ferri, Portfolio Solutions

Several things:

1) Central banks of most major governments hold gold in their vaults. Many governments have restricted the sale of gold bullion for their own citizens (including the US). Gold has also been confiscated in the past. This is curious behavior for a material that is worthless or no more valuable than cement bricks.

2) When paper assets are being impacted by falling currencies investors will turn to hard assets to protect their wealth. Hard assets remain well after inflation has ravaged paper. Gold is a leading hard asset to own because it represents a compact form of wealth that has been used as money for thousands of years of human history. It is very liquid and seen as valuable just about everywhere on the planet.

3) The price growth of gold has provided excellent rebalancing opportunities to buy stocks when they were on sale in 2008, 2009 and into 2010. Gold has provided those that hold it in a portfolio with strong diversification through volatile markets and gains beyond just the price appreciation of gold alone. It has done this by allowing gold investors to buy stocks when they were very cheap with gold profits.

If I am going to have commodity exposure, I would rather own the companies that make money from commodities. Because the company can become more productive or more efficient. The company pays dividends. The company can make money even when the underlying commodity isn’t. There are times when gold does much better than gold mining stocks, but in the long run you’re much better off buying precious-metal mining stocks – Rick Ferri, Portfolio Solutions

Gold mining stocks are not the same as gold bullion during times of currency problems that are affecting the markets. They also do not provide the same diversification of gold in certain bad markets. In 2008 gold mining index funds lost more than 70% of their value at their worst. Gold was up +5%.

This chart shows what happened in 2008. The blue line is gold bullion, the red line is a gold mining stock index (Ticker: XME):

Precious Metals and Mining Index vs. Gold Bullion

Stocks are not the same as physical bullion. It doesn’t matter what the stocks are. Stocks share the same risks with each other regardless of what sector they cover. When the stock market is doing very badly it will usually affect all stocks. A market that is very bad for stocks may be very good for gold bullion or vice-versa.

Does Rick Ferri Have a Better Strategy?

No, he doesn’t. Rick Ferri seems to be attacking the strategy of holding gold in a portfolio. So let’s see if his diversification strategy is any better.

He advocates a generally high stock allocation. And, among other things, investors hold preferred stocks, high yield bonds (aka. “Junk Bonds”) along with emerging market debt in the bond allocation. These are high risk plays that contribute nothing but trouble for diversification.

How exactly holding bonds from Mexico, Russia, Ghana and companies with bad credit helps diversify and lower my risks is puzzling to me. Maybe you can figure it out. Gold may be risky in its own way, but I fail to see it as any more risky than Mexican bonds.

But, since we’re talking strategy, here’s a sample of how junk bonds of the kind Rick Ferri recommends diversified your portfolio in 2008 when compared against the US Treasury Long Term Bonds that Harry Browne advised for the Permanent Portfolio. Browne always recommended avoiding credit risk with your bonds and cash allocation. Rick Ferri thinks credit risk is a good idea.

The red line represents a junk bond fund. The blue line is the iShares Treasury Long Term Bond fund (Ticker: TLT).

In that year we also had non-Treasury money market funds break the buck freezing redemptions as the credit crisis hit even these “safe” assets. Investors lost their shirts as their cash reserves took punishing losses during the bankruptcies. Ferri’s emerging market bonds didn’t do much better that year losing around -10% to -15%. Chasing yield and taking credit risk with your bonds and cash is a bad idea. But this is the strategy Rick Ferri recommends. Caveat emptor.

Assets in Isolation

Overall, Rick Ferri makes the classic error of looking at assets in isolation when considering gold. Yet his own approach to diversification isn’t any better and in many ways is worse. It’s worse because he takes risk where you don’t want it (in bonds) and avoids it where it can do more good (such as using hard assets to diversify stock/bond risks).

Diversification is about owning several assets with different risk profiles that, when combined, make a portfolio less risky overall and can even help returns. Gold does that when mixed with stocks and bonds. These other assets? Let’s just say I’m not going to trade in my worthless yellow metal for the security of Sri Lankan bonds.

The argument of holding gold in a portfolio is separate from whether gold at today’s prices is a good or bad deal – Nobody knows that because the future is not knowable. It is an argument that gold works in a diversified portfolio when rebalanced as needed. Gold is not a replacement for stocks and bonds in a portfolio. But then again stocks and bonds are not a replacement for gold either. Each asset has its place and time to perform and each has unique risks.

Overall, Ferri’s opinion on this matter flies in the face of decades of empirical evidence in regards to the how gold can work in a diversified portfolio with stocks and bonds. It may not be an asset he likes, but for people who are full up on bonds from Indonesia, Colombia, and Enron, it’s something to consider.

Go to Top