To Make Sense Of Silver Price Manipulation, You Have To Understand The True Fundamentals
Even though Deutsche Bank finally came out and provided evidence that they have been manipulating the silver market, this didn’t do much to change the falling price trend. Ironically, after Zerohedge published the Deutsche Bank Silver Manipulation article on December 8th, the price of silver fell another 8%.
I would imagine this must have done wonders for already disenchanted silver investor. Which is why I decided to write this article. Even though the present downturn in the paper silver price can be quite frustrating to many investors, SILVER’S REAL VALUE is totally misunderstood by the market.
To understand how the silver price is being manipulated, we have to first understand the silver pricing mechanism. To explain this, I decided to use one of the largest primary silver mining companies in the industry, Pan American Silver.
Unfortunately, the majority of the market still believes that “Supply & Demand” are the leading drivers of price. They aren’t. While I used to believe in this economic theory, I no longer do. I have made the case for this in several of my past articles, but I will show it again using Pan American Silver as another example
I have updated my chart below to show Pan American Silver’s “Estimated Break-even” from 2004 to 2016:
This chart may seem a bit complicated, but it’s not. The top of the BLUE AREA is Pan American Silver’s estimated break-even, the WHITE LINE represents the realized annual silver price and the GREEN or RED figures show the estimated profit or loss per ounce each year.
Basically, when the white line is above the blue area, Pan American Silver made a profit and when it fell below, they suffered a loss. So, except for a few really good years (2011 & 2012), Pan American Silver did not make much money for each ounce of silver they produced. Pan American Silver enjoyed a $9.02 profit per ounce in 2011 and $5.20 in 2012. However, they lost money in 2004, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
With so much action in gold & silver, unfortunately to the downside, we had to get back the biggest expert on their price that we know (well him and Andy Hoffman). Just this week the Federal Reserve raised rates like they did December last year and in the short term the metals are contracting. David's predicting a end of january time for the next wave up in the rally to commence.
The latest consequence of economic mismanagement in Europe was the failed attempt at constitutional reform in Italy this week.
The Italian people have had enough of their government’s economic failure, and is refusing to give it more power.
The EU and the euro project have been an economic disaster for all participants, including Germany, which will eventually be forced to write off the hard-earned savings she has lent to other Eurozone members. We know, with absolute certainty, that the euro will self-destruct and the Eurozone will disintegrate.
We know this for one reason above all. The political class and the ECB are guided by economic beliefs – I cannot dignify them by calling them reasoned theory – which will guarantee this outcome. Furthermore, they insist on using statistics that are incorrect for the stated function, the best example being GDP, which I have criticised endlessly and won’t repeat here. Furthermore, the numbers are misrepresented by government statisticians, CPI and unemployment figures being prime examples.
This article takes a column written by William Hague for the Daily Telegraph published earlier this week to illustrate the depths of misunderstanding even a relatively enlightened politician suffers, with this mix of nonsense and statistical propagandai. This article also refers to a speech delivered this week in Liverpool by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, showing how out of touch with reality he is as well. Many of his and Lord Hague’s misconceptions are shared by almost everyone, so for the most part go unnoticed.
Lord Hague basically blames the euro for all Europe’s ills: “…... it has made some countries, like Italy and Greece, poorer while others get richer”, he opines, and it is certainly a common sentiment. But it is never the currency that’s to blame, but those that attempt to use it to achieve policy outcomes, and inevitably fail in their quest.
Before the euro came into existence, different currencies offered different interest rates, reflecting the market’s appraisal of lending risk. So, the Greek government, borrowing in drachmas, would typically have to pay over 12% interest, while Germany might pay 3% for the same maturity in marks. The fact that there were differing rates in different currencies imposed market discipline on borrowers.
After the introduction of the euro, interest rates for sovereign borrowers converged towards the lowest rate, which was Germany’s. The reason for this was banks could gear up their lending in the bond and money markets to make easy money from the spread between German rates and the others, risk-free on the assumption that the whole caboodle was guaranteed by the EU and the ECB. It was perfectly reasonable to expect this outcome, but whether the panjandrums in Brussels were smart enough to know this would happen is not clear. If they were, they displayed ignorance of the eventual consequences, and if not, they were simply ignorant, full stop.
These same operatives bent the rules they themselves had originally set to allow countries to join the euro. Under the Maastricht Treaty, budget deficits were to have been less than 3% and government debt to GDP less than 60% for a state to qualify for membership. Neither Germany nor France qualified at the outset. And when it came to Greece, the Greek government simply lied, with the full knowledge and encouragement of the other members. No, Lord Hague, it was the policy makers that were at fault, not the currency itself.
But he continues: “Membership of the euro has put the Italians on a permanent path to being poorer”. Not so. It was the Italians who used cheap euro-denominated money to borrow profligately. They, and they alone are responsible for the mismanagement of their economy and their debt problems, which incidentally now exceed the Maastricht 60% limit by a further 75%.
So, who is policing that?
Lord Hague also trots out the canard about how the euro benefits Germany: “Germans keep exporting easily and running up a surplus, while the Italians struggle and go deeper into debt”. This statement in quotes is undoubtedly true on face value, but it is wrong to blame the poor euro. Instead, the blame lies with fiscal imbalances, relative rates of bank credit expansion, and the additional horror of TARGET2. This last artifice is intended to even out the monetary imbalances that would otherwise occur from trade imbalances. But its designers seem to have been completely unaware that the only way trade imbalances can be controlled is through the money shortages and accumulations that result from trade deficits and surpluses respectively. Instead, TARGET2 makes good the money deficiency that results from excess imports, and reduces the money surplus that accumulates in the hands of the exporters. It recycles the money spent by Italians so that it can be spent again, or even hoarded outside Italy, ad infinitum. TARGET2 is living proof of the ridiculousness behind the euro project.
Lord Hague provides an exception to his argument and conclusion, by citing Germany’s greater productivity and suggesting that the only way out was for Mr Renzi to enact bold reforms to raise Italian productivity to the same level as Germany’s. He doesn’t say what these reforms might be. I can tell him: the new government should downsize from 52% of GDP to less than 40%, the lower the better. The redeployment of capital from government destruction to private sector progression will work wonders. Tax policies should favour savers. At the same time, ordinary Italians should be allowed to get on with their lives and made to understand the state is not there to support them with handouts.
Finally, Lord Hague’s conclusion, while correct legally, is incorrect from a strictly economic point of view. He states that leaving the euro is a far more difficult problem than leaving the EU, there being no Article 50 to trigger. He implies that if Italy simply returns to the lira, there can be little doubt that it will rapidly collapse taking its banks with it, because Italy’s creditors will still expect to be repaid in euros while the cost of borrowing in lira is bound to increase rapidly, undermining government finances.
However, contrary to everything Keynesians have been taught and in turn teach gullible students, the economic objective of monetary independance should be sound money, not continual depreciation. Italy has enough gold to arrange a gold exchange standard for herself, or alternatively she could run a currency board with the euro, to ensure the lira retains value for foreign creditors. Either course requires something novel from Italian politicians: they must bite the bullet on government finances and permit capital to be redeployed from moribund businesses to new dynamic entrepreneurial activities. It can be done, and Italy would rapidly emerge as a new industrial force.
But will it be done? Sadly, there’s not a snowball in hell’s chance, and here we must agree with Lord Hague. In common with their opposite numbers everywhere else, Italian politicians have surrounded themselves with economic yes-men, trained at the expense of the state to justify state interventions in the economy. It has become a feed-back loop that ultimately concludes with economic instability, crisis and eventual collapse.
Carney’s groupthink
Lord Hague, while respected as a senior British politician is at least not involved in Italy’s monetary or fiscal policies. Far more dangerous potentially is someone with his hand on the monetary tiller, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England. This week he made a speech in Liverpool, which put the blame for the failure of his monetary policies on everyone but the Bankii. He said politicians need to foster a globalisation that works for all. Really? How are they going to do that? He blames economists for been at fault for not recognising “the realities of uneven gains from trade and technology”. But surely, we all know that establishment economists, including the Bank’s own, have an unrivalled track record of getting things wrong. To expect them to suddenly exhibit forecasting prescience is Carney’s personal triumph of hope over reality. Carney berates companies for not paying tax. This is the classic “someone else’s fault” line, and ignores the easily proven fact that money deployed by the private sector in pursuit of profit is productive, while giving it to government is wasteful. More tax paid may be desired by the state, but it is anti-productive.
The Governor then claims the Bank’s monetary policy has been “highly effective” and that “the data do not support the idea that the period of low rates has benefited the wealthy at the expense of the least wealthy.” He has obviously been unable to make the connection between the falling purchasing power of fixed salaries for the low paid and for pensioners relying on interest income, while stock markets roar to all-time highs on the back of suppressed interest rates and injections of money through quantitative easing. Yes, Mr Carney, my middle-class friends have done very well out of their investments and property, thanks to monetary inflation, but they still pay their gardeners and maids roughly the same depreciated wages.
This is relevant not only to the mismanagement of the UK’s economy, but also that of Europe. Carney attracted considerable criticism, rightly, for falsely threatening economic hell and damnation in the event of a vote for Brexit. This presupposes that everything in Europe is considerably better than for Britain on its own, and confirms that his opposite numbers in Europe, who were pushing the same line, have as much grasp of the economic situation as he has. Carney got this as wrong as he possibly could, but there’s no mea maxima culpa.
If Mr Carney and Lord Hague want to criticise current economic events, they should start by properly understanding the negative effects of fiscal and monetary intervention. They should realise that propping up defunct enterprises by lowering the cost of borrowing and supporting them with government contracts is Luddite and destructive. And above all, they should realise that ordinary people going about their business are infinitely adaptable, have an ability to withstand government and central bank silliness to a remarkable degree, and would deliver their taxes much more effectively if they were simply allowed to just get on with their business without having to suffer from government and central bank micro-management.
Some investors are getting carried away with ‘Trump trades’. Now that he is elected we see the psychological optimism linked to cutting taxes, deregulation, and infrastructure spending being reflected in the stock market. David Skarica thinks the stock market is overvalued, and this upward trend won’t last long. He is preparing for a crash between the summer and fall- which is the common historical trend, as is a crash under a Republican majority.
Many are comparing Trump to Reagan, and David points out some key similarities and differences. In 1980 as well as present day- we have high unemployment, stagnant wages, and are coming out of a 6 or 7 year bull market. There are some glaring differences though. When Reagan took office, the debt to GDP of the US was around 30%.. the interest rates were higher, and people had very little personal debt. When they increased spending and cut taxes, they could run the huge deficits because it was at a low level, while interest rates were coming from a secular top.
Now the debt to GDP is over 100%. Interest rates likely bottomed this past summer, and should be headed higher for the next decade. The tax cuts probably won’t work like they did in the 80’s, because people are too indebted with mortgages, student, and car loans. The tax cuts savings will go to pay off debt, not back into the economy. Stock market capitalization to GDP is 125% right now. It has only been higher during the 2000 bubble in stocks. So we are very overvalued. Even the best of policies probably can’t change that.
The Fed is expected to raise rates in December and a few times next year, while Japan and Europe are still printing money- and every other central bank is either standing pat, or loosening. This means the dollar might go higher in the short to intermediate term, but If the US policy divergence in interest rates continues, it could burst the stock market bubble. Democrats tend to tax and spend, while Republicans borrow and spend- so we can expect huge deficits.
David Morgan joins Silver Doctors with a word of warning. Morgan says changing the president is like changing the captain on the Titanic. The ship is sinking. The issues are systemic. Trump can't put us back on track to overcome the debt burden.
Morgan says people may feel a "Trump Euphoria" for a while. The stock market will continue to rise beyond reason.
Where are precious metals headed? 2017 should be good for gold and silver, Morgan says. He expects gold and silver to rise starting around Trump's inauguration. Morgan says investors may hedge their stock portfolio and move towards precious metals.
The mainstream media is reporting that Russia meddled in the American election by spreading "fake news." Silver Doctors and David Kranzler’s Investment Research Dynamics Blog are now on mainstream media's “red-flag” list of supposed "Russian propaganda outlets." Kranzler says the mainstream media is trying to discredit the alternative media. Even the websites of Ron Paul, David Stockman, and Paul Craig Roberts were found on the list. Smearing these patriots is disgraceful, Kranzler says.
The mainstream media are the true propaganda artists, Kranzler says. The mainstream media is guilty of the same crime they’re accusing the Russian government of. Kranzler says the mainstream media this election season was obviously biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. Will Trump hold the mainstream media accountable? Will he “drain the swamp” in D.C.? Kranzler has his doubts. The corrupt system won’t change substantially, he says. Kranzler isn’t excited for Trump. “The good news is Hillary lost,” Kranzler says, “The bad news is Trump won.”
Market manipulation also shapes the public’s perception. With gold dropping and the stock market hitting all-time highs, the public sees the economy booming. Kranzler ends by giving his insight on how to filter out the mainstream propaganda and find out what’s real.
