Have the Big Banks Turned a Corner?

Article by Investment U

We never forget our first real job.

For me it was the First National Bank of Boston, the second oldest in the country, founded in 1784. Hired by the Asia-Pacific Group, I first went through a six-month executive training program that was basically a crash course on corporate banking basics.

Drilled by crusty veterans on how to read a balance sheet, crunch cash flows and evaluate loan collateral, the overriding goal was to determine the creditworthiness of the borrower and have a wide margin for error. The message was clear – get the money back or else.

I’ll bet the big banks don’t have these training programs anymore. Corporate lending is a much smaller piece of their “financial supermarket model” that’s reached levels of baffling complexity.

This management nightmare has also led to landmines exploding on a regular basis, such as JPMorgan Chase’s (NYSE: JPM) ongoing $9-billion trading loss. And just last week, one of the largest banks in the world, HSBC (NYSE: HBC), announced a $700-million charge to earnings from failure to prevent money laundering in Mexico and set aside $1.3 billion to compensate customers for selling misleading products.

These blunders have hit shareholders right between the eyes. They’ve also fueled the movement to slim down or break up banks. This pressure is picking up steam.

And you won’t guess who just jumped on this bandwagon to break up big banks – the 79-year-old former dealmaker that orchestrated the building of Citigroup (NYSE: C), Sandy Weill. Weill has seemingly had a change of heart across the board, moving to sunny California, cashing out of his spacious Manhattan penthouse for a cool $88 million and putting his 200-foot yacht on the market for $60 million.

HSBC’s poor stock performance over the last couple of years is no surprise to me.

Last May, I warned readers to steer clear of the giants like HSBC and offered a Hong Kong-based bank that has increased revenue at an average annual rate of 18% over the last 10 years as a better alternative. Its share price is up over the past five years while HSBC’s stock is down 51% and Citigroup’s is down 94% over the same period.

What about the future?

This movement for slimmer, more focused and transparent banks is a good one for investors. And the spate of bad news has driven share prices down to attractive levels. The unwinding of the financial supermarket model is very likely to show that the value of the parts is bigger than current stock price.

Citigroup’s stock is trading at just 42% of its tangible break-up value and about six times consensus 2013 earnings estimates. For comparison purposes, the stock traded in 2006 at 260% of book value.

The value of Citi’s international network alone with 4,600 branches in 40 countries seems quite high to me. While the bank’s U.S. revenue was down during the first half of 2012, revenue and profits grew in Latin America and Asia. Above all, Citigroup needs top line growth, but continues to cut expenses, with the investment banking group alone shedding $332 million in the second quarter of this year.

I also see some signs of progress and value with HSBC.

Since the beginning of 2011, the bank has completed 36 deals to get rid of non-core businesses, shed 27,000 employees and cut annual expenses by $2.7 billion.

HSBC, formerly known as the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, is finally getting back to its roots in Asia. Hong Kong profits in the first half were up 23% while the rest of Asia was up 17%.

HSBC’s great unwinding has a way to go but it has a balance sheet to stay the course with more than $150 billion on deposit with central banks.

Both of these complex behemoth banks have a long way to go to become more manageable and transparent, but are turning a corner and represent good value.

Good Investing,

Carl

Article by Investment U

Reverse Mortgage Pros, Cons, and the Fonz

Article by Investment U

You may have seen the commercials featuring “The Fonz,” or Henry Winkler, peddling reverse mortgages. If not, you can see it here:

You can throw former Presidential candidate Fred Thompson and actors James Garner and Robert Wagner in the mix, too.

The spokesmen certainly make these products sound enticing. They promise cash now as a financial cure-all while in retirement. But these spots never go into much detail about what exactly a reverse mortgage entails.

It’s “so easy,” but does it come with some severe possible costs? If you or your parents are looking at this process as an option, I’m about to cover what you’ll need to take into consideration.

What Exactly is a Reverse Mortgage?

Reverse mortgages are available to homeowners over the age of 62 and it gives them the ability to convert their home equity into cash while still living there. It differs from a regular mortgage in that you’re not paying down principal so that your home equity is increasing.

The reverse mortgage gives you your home equity as a payment, which raises your debt and decreases equity. Thus, it’s called a reverse mortgage.

The most popular form of this loan is the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM). It’s administered by HUD and insured by the FHA.

So when would you need to repay this loan? When the homeowner dies or moves out for good, the loan is settled usually through the sale of the home. If the mortgage is more than the market value of the house, the FHA makes up the difference.

Here’s the Catch…

So there’s a mortgage product that people don’t understand? Go figure…

On the surface, this seems like a pretty good way to get some cash out of your house. It’s kind of like refinancing.

But here’s the catch. The newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – which came out of the Dodd-Frank legislation – is now in charge of all mortgage regulation. Congress gave the CFPB the charge to investigate the reverse mortgage industry and see if there were any shady or deceitful practices going on.

What it found in its report was that the product was too complex for the majority of seniors to comprehend.

“Reverse mortgages are complex and have the potential to become a much more pervasive product in the coming years as the baby boomer generation enters retirement,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “With 1 in 10 reverse mortgages already in default, it is important that consumers understand what they are signing up for and that it is the right product for them.”

Some found it hard to grasp the concept of the increasing debt and decreasing equity aspect of the loans. Others didn’t even get that the product is really a loan. These are serious red flags as we come out of a period where people entered into mortgages they didn’t really understand – and we’re still reeling from its results today.

Defeating the Intended Purpose

Let’s dive a little deeper into the report…

The report validates some previous concerns about the risks to borrowers. The product, as I’ve stated before, is very complex. But with the commercials and celebrity spokesman, seniors just see it as a means to a quick payday. And more of a growing issue is the way in which the number of borrowers is expanding. One of the real issues is that the age of the borrower is getting younger.

Almost half of the borrowers last year were under the age of 70. Many of these borrowers were using funds to pay off regular mortgages rather putting it to meet present day bills. If some financial crisis pops up, you’re tapped out if that was your last resort.

Another issue is in how you take your payment. Seventy percent of borrowers are opting for large lump sum payments at a fixed rate rather than going for the more flexible lines of credit with adjustable rates.

Wait a minute! Wasn’t it those adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) that got everyone in trouble a few years back?

Yup. However, that holds true for regular mortgages. But remember that these are reverse mortgages. A fixed-rate reverse mortgage pays an upfront lump sum of the entire amount you qualify for. This usually means higher interest costs and a more rapid depletion of equity.

Megan Thibos, a policy analyst in CFPB’s mortgage markets group and principal author of the report, states, “The lump sum loan leaves you with no flexibility or cushion… If you take an adjustable rate line of credit and fail to pay your taxes or insurance, the lender can process a payment from your line of credit. But that’s not possible if you’ve taken it all upfront.”

Worst-Case Scenarios

What’s really scary about this product is that they can create some really bad situations for the investor and his family. Here’s what could happen:

  • If the borrower needs nursing home care in the future, there could be a big problem. The deal works as long as they live in the home. If the borrower has to move out of the home into an assisted living arrangement or a nursing home, that reverse mortgage is now due.
  • If a senior couple takes off a spouse from the property’s title because they aren’t the qualifying 62 years of age, there can be devastating repercussions. If the older spouse dies or is put in a home, the younger spouse could lose the home.
  • In a similar circumstance, if an older spouse leaves off the younger to qualify for a higher loan amount (the amount of the loan is tied to the borrower’s age) then their death or admission to a nursing home could cause the loss of the house.
  • The previous two points also apply to any non-borrowing family members who live in in that home, such as children or grandchildren.
  • All principal, interest and fees have to be paid in full for the lender to give possession of the home to any rightful heirs. If they can’t pay up, the house will be foreclosed on. If your heirs are cash-strapped, your home may not be a part of any inheritance.

As you can see, this is no product to jump into without due diligence. Not only could you lose your home, but it could be lost for spouses and family members. A reverse mortgage may be one of those products only necessary as a last resort.

Good Investing,

Jason

Article by Investment U

Uncertainty Regarding ECB Action Sends EUR Lower

Source: ForexYard

The euro saw losses across the board on Friday, as inaction on the part of the European Central Bank (ECB) to lower borrowing costs in Spain and Italy resulted in risk aversion in the marketplace. This week, in addition to any developments regarding the ongoing euro-zone debt crisis, traders will also want to pay attention to several indicators out of the US which could lead to market volatility. Tuesday’s Retail Sales, Core Retail Sales and PPI figures, followed by manufacturing data on Thursday and a consumer sentiment indicator on Friday, are all forecasted to show growth in the US economy. If true, risk taking could return to the marketplace which may lead to euro gains.

Economic News

USD – US News Set to Generate Market Volatility This Week

The US dollar had a mixed trading day on Friday, as risk aversion due to the euro-zone debt crisis led to gains against the EUR, but also losses against the JPY. After spiking more than 50 pips during the evening session to trade as high as 1.2315, the EUR/USD began falling and eventually closed out the week at 1.2286. Against the yen, the dollar fell some 45 pips over the course of the European session to reach as low as 78.15. The greenback was able to stage a moderate recovery during the evening session and finished out the week at 78.28.

This week, dollar traders will want to note a number of potentially significant US indicators set to be released. Tomorrow in particular may turn out to be a hectic day in the marketplace, as the US Retail Sales, Core Retail Sales and PPI figures are all set to be released at 12:30 GMT. With all three indicators forecasted to show improvements in the US economy, risk taking could return to the marketplace and result in losses for the safe-haven greenback.

EUR – EU Debt Worries Weigh Down on Euro

Ongoing concerns among investors regarding the ECB’s ability to combat the euro-zone debt crisis weighed down on the euro before markets closed for the weekend on Friday. Against the safe-haven Japanese yen, the common currency fell more than 90 pips during European trading to reach as low as 95.71 before bouncing back to finish out the day at 96.18. The EUR/GBP dropped more than 40 pips over the course of the day to close the week out at 0.7831.

Turning to this week, Tuesday is likely to be the most volatile for euro traders, as a batch of data is set to be released out of the euro-zone. Attention should be given to the French and German Prelim GDP figures, as well as the German ZEW Economic Sentiment. As the two wealthiest countries in the EU, French and German indicators tend to have a significant impact on the common currency. Furthermore, the euro could see considerable movement in the coming days if there are any announcements regarding new plans to combat the debt crisis in the region.

Gold – Gold Turns Bullish to Finish Week

After taking losses for most of the first part of the day on Friday, gold was able to rally for significant gains during the afternoon session. The precious metal dropped more than $12 an ounce during morning trading to reach as low as $1605.21, after a worse than expected Chinese trade figure led to risk aversion in the marketplace. That being said, an afternoon rally saw gold advance by more than $15 to finish out the week at $1619.60.

This week, gold traders will want to pay attention to a batch of potentially significant US news set to be released throughout the week. Any better than expected US news could result in risk taking among investors, which could help gold extend last week’s gains.

Crude Oil – Crude Recovers Following Disappointing Chinese Data

The price of crude oil tumbled during Asian trading on Friday, following the release of a worse than expected Chinese trade figure which led to risk aversion in the marketplace. Oil dropped close to $2 a barrel to reach as low as $91.68. That being said, the commodity did stage an upward correction during evening trading and eventually finished out the week $93.29.

This week, oil traders will want to pay attention to any news out of the euro-zone and its impact on risk appetite in the marketplace. In addition, any developments in the ongoing conflict between Iran and the West have the potential to create volatility in the price of oil.

Technical News

EUR/USD

A bullish cross appears to be forming on the weekly chart’s MACD/OsMA, indicating that upward movement could occur in the coming days. That being said, most other technical indicators show this pair range trading, making a definitive trend hard to predict. Taking a wait and see approach may be the best choice at this time.

GBP/USD

Most long term technical indicators place this pair in neutral territory, meaning that a definitive trend is hard to predict at this time. Taking a wait and see approach may be the best option, as a clearer picture is likely to present itself in the near future.

USD/JPY

The Bollinger Bands on the weekly chart are narrowing, signaling that a price shift could occur in the coming days. Additionally, the Williams Percent Range on the weekly chart is currently about to drop into oversold territory, indicating that the shift could be bullish. Going long may be the right approach for this pair.

USD/CHF

Both the Williams Percent Range and the Relative Strength Index on the weekly chart are very close to crossing into overbought territory, signaling that downward movement could occur in the coming days. Traders will want to closely watch these two indicators. If they do signal that the pair is overbought, it may be a good time to open short positions.

The Wild Card

EUR/CAD

The daily chart’s MACD/OsMA has formed a bullish cross, signaling that an upward correction could occur in the near future. Furthermore, the Williams Percent Range on the same chart has crossed into oversold territory. Forex traders may want to open long positions ahead of a bullish correction.

Forex Market Analysis provided by ForexYard.

© 2006 by FxYard Ltd

Disclaimer: Trading Foreign Exchange carries a high level of risk and may not be suitable for all investors. There is a possibility that you could sustain a loss of all of your investment and therefore you should not invest money that you cannot afford to lose. You should be aware of all the risks associated with Foreign Exchange trading.

 

Market Review 13.8.12

Source: ForexYard

printprofile

The euro saw mild gains against the US dollar in overnight trading, as investors remain hesitant to go overly bearish against the common currency ahead of possible ECB action next month to lower borrowing costs in Spain and Italy. Gold advanced more than $4 an ounce last night, reaching as high as $1624.91 before staging a slight downward correction. The precious metal is currently trading just above the $1623 level.

Main News for Today

With no major news releases scheduled to be released today, traders will want to continue monitoring developments in the euro-zone with regards to possible action by the ECB to lower Spanish and Italian borrowing costs. Any positive developments could result in significant euro gains.

Read more forex news on our forex blog

Forex Market Analysis provided by ForexYard.

© 2006 by FxYard Ltd

Disclaimer: Trading Foreign Exchange carries a high level of risk and may not be suitable for all investors. There is a possibility that you could sustain a loss of all of your investment and therefore you should not invest money that you cannot afford to lose. You should be aware of all the risks associated with Foreign Exchange trading.

Why I’ve Done a U-Turn on Solar Energy

By MoneyMorning.com.au

‘I don’t get it’, one of our researchers, Ben, asked your editor last week.

‘For the past three years you’ve done nothing but criticise solar and wind energy, yet last month you tipped a solar power stock. What gives?’

‘There’s a simple reason we tipped a solar stock,’ we replied. ‘It’s due to the removal of one thing that’s held back alternative energy from reaching its full potential. It means a bad industry, could soon become the major growth industry of this century.’

‘If you’ve got 10 minutes I’ll explain everything in detail.’

And if you’ve got 10 minutes to spare, we’ll take you through everything we told Ben. It just may change your view on solar and alternative energy forever…

But before we go through that, here’s a story from today’s Financial Times that helps illustrate what we’ll explain today:


‘If all the proceeds of 30 years of global privatisations were put into one bank account, it would be almost wiped out by the price tag for rescuing the world’s crisis-hit banks.

‘National governments have invested about $1.7trn in financial institutions such as AIG, the New York based insurer, in the past four years, according to Privatisation Barometer, a research project. This compares with the $1.8tn in proceeds from the worldwide privatisation of assets that range from airports to telecoms and water networks in the decades since 1981.

‘The figures underscore that governments are nationalising assets, even as they privatise others.’ – Financial Times

That story confirms what we’ve said all along. Rather than China moving towards capitalism, Western governments are moving towards communism.

But not only that, don’t forget that most privatised industries aren’t really private companies. They don’t really operate in a free and private market.

Most privatised utilities and transport firms still work under heavy government rules.

That means they aren’t private companies. Most of them are just quasi-government bodies that retain the government gift of monopoly or the government gift of regulated pricing.

And regulated pricing is bad news for consumers. It always means prices rise rather than fall. Utilities, transport and healthcare companies are perfect examples.

We came across a recent note from Medibank Private at the weekend. It said our health insurance premiums had to rise by $4.76 per fortnight due to – among other reasons – the ‘rising costs of technology’.

That came as a surprise to us. Because everywhere else we look, new technology tends to cause prices to fall not rise.

It was this example we used to explain to our researcher, Ben, why after bagging solar energy for three years, we’ve now decided to back it…

How Government Stifles Innovation

One of the biggest brakes you can put on innovation is to allow the government to interfere and set prices.

Governments interfere for many reasons. One reason is that they don’t like how free markets work. In a free market, consumers decide which businesses and products succeed or fail.

That process of success and failure can be random. It can lead to fortunes for some firms and bankruptcy for others.

It can mean one business creates a lot of jobs, while another business has to lay off a lot of jobs.

Of course, in a free market, with no government intervention, entrepreneurs can hire those who lose their jobs. Or they may even be hired by more successful businesses that need more labour for their growth.

Governments don’t like the fickle nature of the free market, because they can’t control it. They can’t promise jobs for people if they can’t control who creates the jobs. And if they can’t control that, there’s no reason for anyone to vote for them.

So, one of the major roles of government is to try to control market for jobs and prices. That’s why you see so many laws on industrial relations, business red tape, and price control (taxes, interest rates, subsidies, import and export tariffs and regulations, etc.).

But government interference has another bad impact on business and the market. It stifles innovation.

Why Green Energy Subsidies Stunted the Solar Industry


Take subsidies for the green energy industry. When an industry gets a subsidy or is gifted a government monopoly, the industry and business know that the government can remove the subsidy or monopoly at any time.

It could happen within weeks, months or years. But whatever the timeframe, businesses know they have to make the most of their gifted position while they’ve got it.

That means the business has to produce as many units of their product as possible and sell them as quickly as possible.

In the case of the solar industry it meant producing solar panels at a rapid rate and selling them quickly before the government subsidy ended.

The knock-on effect is that because the business (and industry) has a short-term focus to profit from the subsidy, they put any thoughts of product development on the back burner.

Why invest a billion dollars in research and development that may take two or three years to come to fruition, when the company could invest the billion dollars in producing more of its existing product to sell now?

After all, if the subsidy ends next year what use is the billion dollars spent on R&D?

But not only that, because of the subsidy, there’s no incentive for companies to reduce their costs. They set the price at the level they believe the customer will pay after deducting the subsidy.

For instance, if a company knows customers will pay $5,000 for solar panels, and the government offers a $2,000 subsidy, the company won’t drop the price to $3,000. Instead, the company will price the product at $7,000, knowing that the customer still only pays $5,000 after the subsidy.

The result is prices tend to flat line at best…or rise at worst.

What the Solar Energy Industry Could Learn from TVs

Compare that to the free market for most other technology. The television industry is a great example. 10 years ago you wouldn’t get much change out of $10,000 for a 40-inch plasma TV.

Today, you can buy a cheap 40-inch plasma TV for less than $500.

But plasma isn’t even the latest technology. Now you’ve got LCD, LED, HD, and 3D. Sharp has even released a 70-inch LED TV that’s infinitely better quality than the 40-inch plasma TVs of 10 years ago…and yet it costs less than half the price (about $4,000).

But how is that possible? After all, according to Medibank Private, new technology should have caused prices to rise, not fall.

The answer is simple – it’s all thanks to competition and a lack of government interference.

In the TV market there isn’t a government-gifted monopoly on the provision of TVs. There isn’t any government mandated price control. The TV manufacturers don’t have to submit pricing to the government to get approval to index a price rise.

No. What happens is that firms invest millions of dollars in research and development to produce the best product possible. They’re looking for anything that can give them an edge over the competition.

Not so long ago, you couldn’t buy an LCD TV larger than 30 inches…because it wasn’t technologically possible.

Well, telling an entrepreneur that something isn’t possible is like waving a red rag to a bull. So today LCD TVs are pushing out the cheaper plasma TVs due to new innovation. And LCD TVs are now the same size as plasmas.

All this is possible because TV manufacturers don’t have to worry about the subsidy cuts. So rather than pushing out the same product quickly, they focus on developing new products to gain market share. And that leads to a better product for consumers.

Could Solar Energy be 100-Times Better
for One-Tenth of the Price?

But it doesn’t stop there. As soon as one firm does something, other firms are quick to copy. That drives down prices and encourages more innovation.

The end result is a product that’s 100-times better but priced at just one-tenth of the cost.

This brings us back to solar power. The best thing that could have happened to the green energy industry is the global financial meltdown in 2008. As governments attempted to cut costs, green energy subsidies have been a major casualty.

In the short term, that’s bad for the industry, because it dries up the demand. But in the longer term it’s great news.

Why? Because without the stimulus of government handouts, solar companies will need to improve their products. They’ll need to invest in research and development for the long term – just like TV manufacturers.

And while it could mean that some solar firms go out of business, it will also mean that more firms will enter the business. They’ll see the chance to profit from high prices.

But as competition increases, that’s when consumers will start to see the benefit…prices will fall and the product quality will improve.

The Solar Energy Advantage

As we explained to our researcher, Ben, solar energy has one major advantage over every other conventional and alternative energy source – it’s local.

You can’t install a coal-fired or gas-fired power plant on the roof of your house. And you’ll have a tough time getting approval to build a nuclear power plant in your backyard.

Even wind turbines have to be pretty big to generate enough electricity to power your home. But solar power? Well, that’s different.

Solar panels are inoffensive. They don’t take up any extra space (you just stick them on the roof). They aren’t an eyesore. And they don’t emit anything that could annoy the neighbours. Solar power is the perfect localised energy solution.

And at the right price (assuming governments can keep their big fat noses out) we don’t see a single reason why every household and every business in Australia shouldn’t have solar panels on the roof.

Given time, and with technological advances, we believe this is possible. Of course, it won’t happen overnight. It’ll take time.

Now, don’t get us wrong. That isn’t to say solar will be the only energy source, because it probably won’t. It’s not efficient enough. But as a complement to gas- or coal-fired power stations, solar energy makes a lot of sense.

And as an investor, we believe now is the best time to buy, with solar stocks hitting all-time lows.

Make no mistake, investing in solar energy is a high-risk punt. But at these prices it’s a punt worth making for any speculator.

Cheers,
Kris

Related Articles

Market Pullback Exposes Five Stocks to Buy

How Low Natural Gas Prices Are Causing Energy Havoc

Why the Doc Should Have Flown Further West


Why I’ve Done a U-Turn on Solar Energy

The Dumb Money Hates Silver, It’s Time to Go Long

By MoneyMorning.com.au

Speculators hate silver

For the past year, the positive silver headlines have been few and far between.

Ever since the poor man’s gold peaked near $50 in April of last year, it’s become a despised metal.

Admittedly, it’s been languishing near $27 since early May not far from where it was for the first time – in this bull market – back in late 2010.

But as I’ll show you, right now a number of technical, seasonal, and sentiment indicators are pointing upwards for this volatile metal.

This could well be the critical turning point silver investors have been waiting for. One of these indicators is the resilient price of gold.

Let me explain.

The Silver/Gold Ratio

Silver has always pretty much been gold’s lapdog and on a relatively short leash at that.

As a rule, silver prices usually follow the direction of gold. But as long time silver investors recognize, the moves are amplified both on the downside and the upside. Silver prices are simply more volatile than gold prices.

As for gold, since it peaked about a year ago, it seems to be drifting aimlessly in zombie land. For the better part of the year it’s been consolidating about 16% below its previous peak of $1,900.

Today, at $1,600, gold is back to levels its first saw a whole year ago. What investors need to pay attention to is the gold to silver ratio.

Before the financial crisis, the gold/silver ratio was around 50 and trending downward. That meant at the time an ounce of gold would buy you 50 ounces of silver.

Gold/Silver Ratio

Source: StockCharts

Then in late April last year silver exploded higher. As the silver price rose an ounce of gold bought a smaller equivalent amount of silver, pushing the ratio down below 30.

That was short-lived, as silver’s dramatic rise was unsustainable. I had said so at the time.

Today, the ratio recently returned to a high level near 60 which is also unsustainable in its own right on the other side of the trade. It’s why silver’s looking rather undervalued relative to gold right now.

My long term target for gold still remains US$5,000. As this bull progresses, I think we’ll see the gold/silver ratio move down closer to 20 which would imply that silver eventually reaches US$250.

Gold also normally starts its best seasonal period now, as the [northern hemisphere] summer doldrums come to a close. Since its secular bull launched back in 2001, gold has averaged 19% gains between the end of July and the end of May.

If silver follows and tacks on some leverage as well, we could enjoy substantially higher silver prices by next spring.

But thanks to wildly bullish fundamentals, silver could retest its 2011 peak, or better it, by then.

As you know, it’s no secret that Europe is mired in ongoing bank and sovereign bailouts, the U.S. presidential election will bring further uncertainty, and China could be set for a marked slowdown unless it makes its move on stimulus.

I expect lots more money printing as a result, whose inflationary effect is always kind to silver and gold.

Technical Signs Point to a Silver Bottom

On a pure technical price basis, silver is looking quite bullish as well.

Two-Year Silver Price

Source: StockCharts

Silver appears to have bottomed recently in the $26-$27 range. It’s not the first time this price level has been relevant either.

Back in late 2010, $26-$27 acted as resistance where silver’s price had stalled. Late in 2011, and again in the last couple of months, silver has retested those prices, but this time it’s provided support, forming a “silver staircase”.

It now looks like we could be near a new low. Since late June, silver’s been establishing a series of higher lows, providing additional support for a bottom.

Three More Reasons Silver is Headed Higher

But those aren’t the only reasons to be bullish on silver these days-or gold for that matter. Here are three other reasons why the outlook for silver is higher from here:

  • Precious Metals Rise As Markets Fall

[US] Stocks have been in a strong cyclical bull market since bottoming in March 2009. The S&P 500 has gained nearly 105% over the past 41 months. But it’s getting long in the tooth, as the average cyclical bull during secular bears tends to last about 35 months.

Yet precious metals have a tremendous ability to rally during cyclical bears. While the S&P 500 lost 57% from October 2007 to March 2009, gold staged a respectable move higher of 25%.

Whenever the cyclical bear comes out of hibernation, I expect gold and silver to benefit from their established safe-haven status.

  • Contrarian Signals in the Futures Market

Silver contracts are traded on futures exchanges. A useful barometer of who’s long and who’s short silver can be garnered from the weekly Commitment of Traders (COT) reports prepared by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Recent COT reports show that the big speculators (dumb money) are exceptionally bearish on silver right now, at levels reached only four times since this silver bull began in 2002.

Each time that’s happened since, silver has embarked on an impressive rally, climbing at least 70% and even clocking up to several hundred percent gains.

Dumb money, especially at extremes, usually makes for a great contrarian indicator.

  • The Ongoing Move Towards Physical Metals

Worldwide, investors are gravitating toward physical bullion, having tripled their purchases since 2007. Clearly, people are becoming apprehensive of the state of the world’s finances, economies, and governments.

ETFs backed by physical bullion have been losing considerable ground to holding the real thing in hand.

Since 2009, gold ETFs have seen annual net additions decline 73%, while silver ETFs saw an outflow of 26 million ounces in 2011, and slowing annual net additions since 2009.

When people go out of their way to get the real thing, they don’t readily turn around and trade it, even if the metal starts to make new highs. For all practical purposes, bullion purchased by individuals who take physical possession comes “off the market”. And that too is bullish for silver prices.

So as we enter the strongest seasonal period of the year for precious metals, political and economic factors could help drive explosive demand for silver.

That combined with the overextended Gold/Silver ratio, the extreme short position held by silver speculators, the push for physical bullion, and the bottoming price, means silver is being primed for substantial gains.

If a perfect storm develops for precious metals, silver could well retest, or even break through its all-time highs by next spring, allowing for almost a 100% gain from current levels.

My advice: Don’t be part of the “dumb money”. Instead, use this opportunity to go long.

Peter Krauth
Contributing Editor, Money Morning

Publisher’s Note: This article originally appeared in Money Morning (USA)

From the Archives…

Trusted With Trillions, Bankers Can’t Even Work Out a Two Dollar Puzzle
10-08-2012 – Kris Sayce

What This ‘Junk’ Tells You about Stock Prices
09-08-2012 – Kris Sayce

How to Defeat Your Worst Enemy in Investing: Yourself
08-08-2012 – John Stepek

The Mining Boom is Over
07-08-2012 – Dan Denning

Why the Doc Should Have Flown Further West
06-08-2012 – Kris Sayce


The Dumb Money Hates Silver, It’s Time to Go Long

EURUSD is facing trend line support

EURUSD is facing the support of the upward trend line on 4-hour chart, as long as the trend line support holds, we’d expect uptrend to resume, and another rise to 1.2600 area is still possible. On the downside, a clear break below the trend line will indicate that the rise from 1.2134 has completed at 1.2442 already, then the following downward movement could bring price to 1.1700 area.

eurusd

Daily Forex Forecast

Pakistan cuts rate to spur lending, better inflation outlook

By Central Bank News
    The central bank of Pakistan cut its policy rate by 150 basis points to 10.5 percent to boost private sector lending amidst an improving inflation outlook, even if it expected consumer prices to exceed the bank’s target for the 2013 fiscal year.
    The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) said the inflation rate eased to 9.6 percent in July from 11.3 percent in June, but this was due to temporary factors, such as lower oil prices and a large cut in administered gas prices. Nevertheless, this “created strong market expectations for a downward revision in SBP’s policy rate,” the bank said in a statement, adding government bond yields had eased.
    The central bank said it was still too early to conclude that inflation was on a permanent path toward lower rates, forecasting consumer price inflation of 10-11 percent in fiscal 2013, above the 9.5 percent target. However, inflation in fiscal 2012 was within the 12 percent target.

    “In any case, it would be too early to call it an emerging trend as there are still deep-rooted factors driving inflation. Stickiness in both the core inflation measures points towards the persistence of inflation in low double digits,” the SBP said, adding:
    “The main reason for this moderation in inflation is a collapse in real private investment, indicating a structurally weak economy. However, it continues to persist in double digits for the fifth consecutive year as there are still deep-rooted factors driving inflation.”
    The bank said Pakistan’s economy had not been able to achieve an upward trajectory due to falling private investment over the last four years at the same time that inflation remained high.
    “With the economy operating at a level less than its potential level, this creates a policy dilemma. While a negative output gap does provide room for an accommodating monetary policy stance, persistently high inflation at the back of well entrenched inflationary expectations limits such policy maneuver. Breaking out of this rather complex nexus is therefore the real challenge faced by the Pakistan economy in general and SBP in particular,” the bank said.
    The SBP last cut its discount rate by 150 basis points to 12 percent in October 2011.
    www.CentralBankNews.info


Don’t Count Out Technology and Human Ingenuity

By MoneyMorning.com.au

‘We are five years into a severe global food crisis that is very unlikely to go away. It will threaten poor countries with increased malnutrition and starvation and even collapse. Resource squabbles and waves of food-induced migration will threaten global stability and global growth. This threat is badly underestimated by almost everybody and all institutions with the possible exception of some military establishments.’ – Jeremy Grantham

The fear of a food crisis isn’t a new phenomenon.

For centuries, humans have worried that the world’s food supply can’t sustain a larger population. In 1798 the godfather of the over-population theory, Thomas Malthus wrote:

‘The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.’

According to Scientific American, the world population in 1798 was about 800 million. Today it’s seven billion…that’s a 775% increase.

Sure, it hasn’t been an easy ride to get an eight-fold increase in the population. There have been famines – natural and man-made. But we’ve got there, from 800 million to seven billion. And it’s happened despite the fears of a global food famine that would almost destroy mankind.

So, how did it happen?

Fears That Never Played Out

The answer is industrialization and technology. Remember, when Malthus wrote his essay in 1798, the world had gone through momentous change – the Industrial Revolution, and the American and French Revolutions.

And the world population had seen a 50% increase in just 100 years. Surely that kind of growth wasn’t sustainable. But it was. And 200 years later, after a 775% increase, the current population is still sustainable.

But humans are worrisome creatures. Recently in Australian Small-Cap Investigator, we wrote about another crisis that until recently was set to bring the world’s biggest economy to a halt.

The crisis was in energy, and the country was the United States.

Yet as much as everyone feared a US energy crisis, it never happened. Why?

Because of technology and entrepreneurialism. Without going into the full story, the high oil price and America’s dependence on imports from the Middle East forced entrepreneurial energy executives to explore for unconventional energy supplies.

And it just so happened that the US had access to what looks set to be the world’s largest supply of shale oil and gas. The technology needed to recover this gas is different to that needed for conventional oil and gas. And that meant entrepreneurs needed to take risks and invest in new technology.

It’s arguable, but there’s a chance that without the high oil price, the discovery and recovery of shale oil and gas may never have happened and the US would be in the middle of an energy crisis.

But it did happen. And according to oil giant, BP, the US is on the way to being energy independent by 2030…less than 20 years from now. That’s a big turnaround.

Other shortages include the fabled housing shortage. From here to London to California, the housing spruikers screamed there was a housing shortage and that more needed to be done to build houses to avoid millions living on the streets.

But when the housing market hit a peak in 2006 in the US and UK (2010 in Australia), suddenly the market was awash with houses. The shortage disappeared overnight. And now, even some mainstream analysts in Australia believe cities such as Melbourne have a major housing glut rather than a shortage.

But let’s get back to the food shortage. Jeremy Grantham is a pretty influential guy. If he says there’s a shortage, you should take him seriously. And because of this, he says agricultural commodities are a buy. And he’s not the only one.

Famous commodities investor, Jim Rogers has a similar view.

They could be on to something. Symptoms of this were on show when corn and wheat hit the headlines recently after big run-ups in price due to the drought in major farming areas of the United States.

It might be a taste of things to come.

Agriculture Got Left Behind

The commodity boom since 2000 has not kicked off in agriculture anywhere near like it has in energy and metals. Agricultural prices are still depressed on a historic basis. So how long before they start to catch up?

Corn, wheat and soybeans have all rallied strongly in the last few months. This is regardless of the fact that the economic news out of Europe, China and the United States has not improved in any way. People need to eat, no matter how their shares are doing.

The global population is getting bigger and bigger and that includes a huge shift to a more protein-heavy diet. This has left existing inventories low and an obvious conclusion: agriculture is going to rise over time.

We won’t argue that commodities are worth buying. If we’ve learned anything over the past few years it’s that the perception of a shortage is more important than the reality.

If enough people think there’s a shortage then prices will start to reflect that. And that could mean higher prices for corn, wheat, sugar, and any other soft commodity you can think of.

And it could also mean high prices for one of the most important commodities you can’t eat – potash. Dr. Alex Cowie has been on the potash bandwagon for some time now. He says that:

‘We could well see another swathe of food riots around the world – mostly in poor countries that bear the brunt of supply shocks – like we did the last time the corn price was at these levels, in 2008.

‘Then, after the market is reminded of the tragic human cost of crop failures, the global conversation will focus on food security once again.

‘Part of this conversation will be highlighting the importance of fertilisers to increase production rates.

‘In short – each year the world tries to feed more mouths with less farmland, while enduring more volatile weather. So farmers need to use fertilisers to make every hectare count.’

That makes sense to us. And we can see why he’s tipped an Aussie potash stock.But do we think we’ll see a complete breakdown of the human race as Mr Grantham appears to suggest? No. Technology and human ingenuity will protect us from that.

As we say, that doesn’t mean food prices won’t soar. And it doesn’t mean there won’t be areas of the world that suffer from a food shortage, leading to terrible consequences. But it won’t be the end of the world…time and again humans have proven that we’re too smart to let that happen.

Cheers,

Kris

The Most Important Story This Week…

Iron ore prices fell to a two-year low this week. This is bad news for some of Australia’s biggest miners. They make a lot of money from this one commodity. The lower the iron ore price, the lower their profitability.

Iron ore is also very important for Australia. It makes up a large percentage of our exports. As coal and iron ore prices come off the boil, this will be a real problem for a lot of investors. Dan Denning explains why and the steps to take to protect your wealth in The Mining Boom is Over.

Other Recent Highlights…

Kris Sayce on Why the Doc Should Have Flown Further West: “This month he’s put Africa back on the buy list, tipping a stock that’s in the driving seat as the African energy sector gets set to boom. It’s a story we’ve backed too, getting in on the act last December. And the one area of most interest is the East African coastline.”

Keith Fitz-Gerald on Sorry, Facebook is Still Only Worth $7.50 a Share: “I also posited the assumption that Facebook would be unable to maintain the 100% plus growth that many investors believed was baked into the proverbial cake. Google couldn’t. Apple couldn’t. And both of them are real businesses. That’s the key…real businesses.”

John Stepek on How to Defeat Your Worst Enemy in Investing: Yourself: “When the same stock is plunging days later, it’s your gut that will tell you to ignore it, because it’s bound to rebound. When it fails to do so, it’s your gut that will panic and tell you to sell it just at the point of maximum loss. In short, your gut is the enemy. How do you beat it?”

Kris Sayce on Have You Tried the ‘Two-Hand’ Portfolio Asset?: “As you may know, we’re not a big fan of the idea that you should diversify your investments. That’s not to say you should stick all your money into one thing. Rather, we mean it’s important you don’t over-diversify. The last thing you want in a volatile market is to have investments all over the place.”

To End the Week…


Don’t Count Out Technology and Human Ingenuity

2012 London Olympics: Economic Benefits Not What You Think

By MoneyMorning.com.au

With the whole world eagerly focused on the 2012 London Olympics, it’s easy to think of this year’s games as one big fundraising event for the city – but it’s far from the case.

Like any host city, London expected a three-week surge in visitors to draw record revenue for the region and its vendors.

But the 2012 London Olympics, like global sporting events before, will disappoint.

Instead of luring money to the city, it actually drives out the usual spenders and decreases tourism, drastically reducing revenue for local businesses. That means host cities hardly ever recoup the costs it takes to prepare for holding the Olympic Games.

Just look at Montreal.

Montreal, which hosted the 1976 Olympics, is the best example of the negative economic side effects of the Olympics.

The city’s mayor infamously said, ‘the Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby.’

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Mismanagement and unexpected costs left the city’s citizens with a $1.5 billion debt that took three decades to erase. The final payment on the debt was made in 2006.

‘The government wants to say that not only are we going to have a good time with this event, but it’s also going to make us rich,’ Stefan Szymanski, professor of sports management at the University of Michigan, told CNN. ‘And that’s just not true.’

London usually sees 300,000 foreign and 800,000 domestic tourists per day during the month of August. It is widely expected that these numbers will be down this year following the 2012 Olympics.

‘These people have been told implicitly that they should stay away and they have done so,’ European Tour Operators Association Chief Executive Tom Jenkins told the AFP. ‘The numbers are currently dramatically down on last year. How far down will be determined by how long Transport for London maintains the ‘don’t come into London’ campaign.’

Of the 2,500 U.K. hotel owners surveyed by TripAdvisor, 58% said the Games would have no impact on business, while just 35% think they will see either a short-term or long-term positive effect.

The transportation industry has a more grim take on hosting the Games – their business has already suffered.

‘Our business is down by about 20-40 percent depending on the time of day,’ Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, told the AFP. ‘Normally about 90 percent of our customers are Londoners but they’ve all left the city and haven’t been replaced by tourists. I don’t know where all these tourists are or how they’re getting about, but London is like a ghost town.’

Not only is a tourism decline hurting the city’s revenue; London is already in debt because the cost of Olympics hosting starts with the bidding process.

Olympics Economic Benefits Dead from Start

London had to beat out other U.K. cities before it went up against the international field to finally win the bid.

This process is driven by private interest groups supporting construction, architecture, bankers and lawyers who care little for London’s fiscal well-being and more for their own pockets. That means they pressure the city to overbid.

‘Even in an ideal world where aspiring host cities behaved rationally, the competition to land the games would leave the winner just about breaking even, or maybe with a small windfall,’ said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College who recently published International Handbook on the Economics of Mega Sporting Events. ‘But we don’t live in an ideal world. In practice, host cities tend to be captured by private interests who end up promising much more than the city can afford.’

The winning city isn’t the only one hurt by the bidding process. Chicago, during its three-year bid process, spent $100 million on advertising, preparing venues for inspection, and promotions in a losing effort to lure the Olympic selection committee to choose the Windy City.

2012 London Olympics Costs Continue to Rise

The British government has raised its 2012 London Olympics budget estimate to nearly $15 billion – almost four times the initial amount of $4 billion.

Some economists project an even higher cost and only some of this investment is tied up in infrastructure projects that may be useful in the future.

With about half the revenue raised going to the International Olympic Committee, London is going to need $10 billion more in revenue than originally projected just to break even.

It is a common trend for host cities to understate budgets. Athens’ initial budget was $1.6 billion, but the final public cost is estimated at closer to $16 billion, ten times higher than originally thought.

And each year, the cost of hosting gets higher.

Atlanta spent $2.4 billion in 1996. Sydney spent $6.8 billion in 2000 and is still trying to fill the rooms it built. Athens, which spent $16 billion in 2004, has venues that are in disrepair because it cost hundreds of millions to maintain them.

Beijing seems to be the only recent host to have benefited in terms of tourism, but only after spending a monstrous $40 billion in 2008 – the most expensive Olympic Games in history.

Then there’s always the fear the exposure will cast an unappealing light on the city, driving away future tourists.

‘Should the Games be plagued by disorganization (e.g., the current security snafu in London), the pervasive pollution of Beijing, the violence of Munich, Mexico City or Atlanta, or the corruption scandals of Salt Lake City and Nagano, then the PR effect might be negative,’ said Zimbalist.

The only instances of success have been Barcelona, which did enjoy a significant tourism boom following the 1992 games, and Los Angeles, which hosted the 1984 games and already had the infrastructure and venues needed.

But two examples of success are hardly anything to brag about.

Ben Gersten
Contributing Editor, Money Morning

Publisher’s Note: This article originally appeared in Money Morning.

From the Archives…

Revealed: Government to Get Hands on More Retirement Savings
03-08-2012 – Kris Sayce

Olympic Badminton Farce Shows How Capitalism Beats Socialism
02-08-2012 – Kris Sayce

How Low Natural Gas Prices Are Causing Energy Havoc
01-08-2012 – Dr. Alex Cowie

Silver Bounces Off Key Level, Where’s it Going Next?
31-07-2012 – Dr. Alex Cowie

How No ‘Plan B’ For The Australian Economy Could Boost Aussie Stocks
30-07-2012 – Kris Sayce


2012 London Olympics: Economic Benefits Not What You Think