The World Bank’s “new gold standard”–what’s that about?

Robert Zoellick, an American who’s head of the World Bank, has recently called, in an op-ed piece in the Financial Times, for the nations of the world to agree to a new framework of international economic cooperation that would be tied together using gold as a “reference point” for value.  “…markets are using gold as an alternative monetary assets today,” he writes.  Gold shot up on this news.  There’s also been an outpouring of nasty comments by professional economists deriding the idea as nonsense.  What is this about?

gold (my view, anyway)

I’ve come to realize that–contrary to my conscious belief that I don’t care that much one way or the other about gold–that I actually do have deep-seated convictions about gold.  Unlike some of my other beliefs, they’re not simply plucked out of the blue, but derive from my having spent close to ten years analyzing natural resources industries, especially metal miners.  This was at a time when, having virtually bankrupted themselves developing massive deposits of base metals, miners were concentrating on gold. (That’s because gold deposits offer high value in small deposits, making them faster and cheaper to develop.)  At the same time, I was also studying the developing countries that are the main sources of demand for the yellow metal (you can find more under the “gold” tab on my blog).  I have three basic conclusions.

1.  Gold is not some sort of proto-money, Ur-money or the “essence” of money.  It’s a metal that used to act as money, but doesn’t in most places any more.  Its virtues are that a small weight/volume contains a lot of value.  You can wear it.  You can break off little pieces to buy stuff.  And, if you want, you can bury it in the back yard so no one–especially the government–knows you have it.  It’s also great if you don’t trust the banks to give back the money you have on deposit.

If you don’t need these attributes, gold is a waste of effort.  You have to safeguard it.  You have to assay it all the time in significant transactions.  And you have to deal with a potentially large bid-asked spread.

2.  Gold doesn’t give inflation protection.  Yes, it has gone up a lot during the past decade.  But that’s not the same as protecting against inflation.  Since 2000, the price level in the US has risen by about 25%.  Gold is up by 450% during the same period.  Not a great match.

From 1980 to 2000, the domestic price level rose by about 80%.  The gold price fell by over 50% during those two decades.

3.  The more you look, the less historical evidence there is for any of the gold bugs claims.  Maybe this is #2 all over again.  But, for example, during the early days of the nineteenth century, metal coins were used as a common medium of exchange in the US.  But they were silver, not gold.  And Spanish coins were preferred to ones from the US, because of their higher purity.

a “true” gold standard

In its purest and simplest form, this means that the money that circulates is either itself gold or is exchangeable into a specified amount of gold on demand.

I don’t think any serious student of economics or history advocates a gold standard in this sense, despite its two positive points:

1.  Governments can’t just print money, willy nilly, to pay for stuff.  No extra gold means no extra money.

2.  Countries have to watch their foreign exchange positions carefully.  A trade deficit is extremely dangerous.  If a creditor nation were to exchange its holdings of a deficit country’s currency for gold, instead of putting the money into the latter country’s government bonds, it would shrink the money supply of the deficit country–causing a recession.

The negatives of such a system outweigh the positives, however.   First of all, the two positives are themselves two-edged swords.  The first would likely prevent a government from taking counter-cyclical economic measures, subjecting it to periodic very violent economic downturns.  The second potentially turns commerce into a political/military battleground, where it is possible to inflict terrible economic damage on a country by redeeming its currency.

Then, of course, there are issues related to the world’s physical supply of gold.

–It is often pointed out that a static, or very slowly growing supply of gold would mean similar limits on world economic growth.

–One might also look back to the effects of the mid-nineteenth century California gold rush, which made millionaires of many Westerners, including the maker of Levi’s jeans, but unleashed a horrible wave of inflation at the same time that destroyed the real value of the savings of just about everyone else.

–Then, of course, there’s my favorite worry.  It’s that a real-life Goldfinger might steal the gold reserves of a given country (likely a small one), thereby rendering its money worthless and stopping its economy in its tracks.

so, what is Mr. Zoellick after?

He knows all this.   In fact, in any proposal over the years that advocates a return to gold, if you read carefully (or read at all), what’s being said has virtually nothing to do with gold per se.  the “gold” part only provides political cover for countries to agree to a course of action which may imply that they’ve been negligent or imprudent in the past, but doesn’t require that they admit it.  And it allows politicians to deflect blame from themselves if an agreement requires painful measures in the future.  After all, it’s not as if they would be choosing to inflict pain.  Gold is forcing them to.

In this case, the issues are obvious.  Politicians in Washington, and in many capitals in Europe, have been stunningly incompetent in managing economic affairs for a long time.  The Great Recession is only one manifestation of this.  China has reached the point where export-oriented emerging economies have always faced their most difficult challenge–persuading the powerful beneficiaries of the status quo that the country must turn away from exports and toward developing the domestic economy.  All sides realize it is likely political suicide to be seen to be “giving in” to the other.

In this case, popular myths about gold can be made to serve a useful purpose.  Maybe I’ve got to warm up to gold, in this sense at least, after all.

 

 

Gold at $1225 an ounce: a good investment?

surging gold price

The gold price has risen by almost 20% so far this year.  The advance is an unusual one, however, in two respects:

1.  Historically, the gold price has typically been stable in strong currency terms.  Much of the apparent strength has been related to depreciation of weaker currencies.  In practice, this has meant the dollar price vs. the euro (or its predecessor, the d-mark).  This year, in contrast, the dollar has been relatively strong.  Nevertheless, the dollar price of gold is up sharply.

2.  The advance is being driven not by demand for jewelry, which is usually the case, but by investment demand.  Last year, investment demand worldwide actually exceeded jewelry demand.  It may do so again in 2010.  Government mints are doing a land office business minting gold coins.  The SPDR Gold Trust ETF has over $50 billion in assets. And the Financial Times reports that commercial banks are considering expanding their vault space for storing physical gold for the first time in thirty years.

two big changes in the market

During the almost thirty years I’ve been watching (often from afar) the gold market, it has undergone two significant changes:

1.  The first is a product of the past seven years..  Thanks to the rise of ETFs, gold is much easier to buy today than it once was.  The SPDR Gold Trust ETF alone holds 1300 tons of the yellow metal, or close to half of the world’s gold production in a year.  It is traded not only in New York but also in Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo.  Vehicles like this eliminate the need to have a commodities account and solve the problems of physical storage, potentially high bid-asked spreads and the need to assay the gold on sale.

2.  Gold was money thirty years ago, but has been gradually losing that role since.  In developing countries, many citizens would use gold as a substitute for bank deposits.  Some had to little to be able to afford a bank.  Some worried about currency devaluation.  But many also feared either government seizure of their wealth, or attracting unfavorable attention (think:  China) from the authorities as being budding capitalists.

Wealthy individuals around the world have long since replaced gold holdings with financial instruments.  And greater political stability in large markets for gold like China or India has meant less fear-motivated demand for gold.  Jewelry demand (and not simply near-pure gold jewelry) has become the main driver of gold consumption.

why a price surge now?

Not now, though.  What are the main factors in increasing investment demand?

I think the main reason is that gold is the default choice for people who are worried about the current weakness in developed countries’ economies and don’t see what else they can buy.  Cash provides safety but almost no return.  Government bond yields are extremely low–and in the case of the euro have not delivered anticipated safety.  Stocks, after having come close to doubling since the lows in March 2009, are wobbling.  They also do best in times of strong economic growth–so they depend on conviction in economic expansion that investors don’t currently have.

What’s left?  a gold ETF plus …?

the risks

I’ve never been a real fan of gold.  As I’ve argued in other posts on this blog, I think gold price movements are ultimately driven by the ebb and flow of gold mining projects.  When prices are low, mining companies stop exploring.  When prices are high, they reopen shuttered mines and develop new deposits.

I think the case today is different.  I think investor demand is being driven by aversion to other liquid investments.  My worry about gold is what happens as/when sentiment about the course of the economies of the developing world improves.  To a great degree, generation-ago demand from the developing world for gold as money is no longer present.  The fact that gold has been very easy to buy through ETFs also means it is very easy to sell.  Remember, too, that there’s no assurance that the price you get in selling an ETF in times of distress will come close to net asset value.  Like any stock, your price will depend on where buyers are willing to make a bid.

what to buy instead?

From me, the answer should come as no surprise–stocks.

Gold as an investment (II)–inflation hedge? not so much

Many people still believe that gold is an inflation hedge.  Maybe that was true in the nineteenth century and before, but I don’t think it is one today.  I don’t think the price of gold over the past thirty years supports the inflation hedge view, either.  But others clearly interpret the data differently from me, since the inflation hedge thesis seems to be firmly embedded in conventional wisdom.

Three factors have changed the place of gold in investing over the past few decades.  All argue against the inflation hedge thesis:

Continue reading

Gold as an investment (I)–Goldfinger redux?

Who doesn’t find gold intriguing?

I’m not a huge fan of gold as an investment.  I can’t relate to what I consider an obsession about the yellow metal by gold bugs.  But I do think it’s a fascinating topic.

When an American thinks about gold, he has images of mystery and intrigue–of pirate treasure, or  James Bond, or  hard-bitten solitary miners making a strike in the hills of the Dakotas or northern California.  In an earlier age, the picture would have been of a guy in a funny hat, wearing an elaborately-decorated bathrobe, trying to “transmute” base metals into gold.

A better image for today might be the situation of a citizen in China or India, Vietnam or Turkey–which are four of the largest consumers of gold (the US and Italy are, too, but the uses are somewhat different). Someone in one of these countries may not be wealthy enough to have a bank account, or may not want an official record of his transactions.  He may also worry that to be seen as wealthy will attract unwelcome government attention, or that a bank account is subject to nationalization in a way that a gold bar buried in the back yard is not.  He may have experienced, or worry about, hyperinflation.  His holding may well technically be jewelry, but more than likely it will be 22 karat or 24 karat  (chuk kam), and bought and sold by weight.

Continue reading