Digital vs. Tangible

US Money Supply (M2) has grown by a factor of six since 1980, while global production of silver from mines has only managed to double in size over that same time frame (index 1980 = 100).

Since 1980 we have created 3x as many dollars (physical currency + checking + savings + retail money markets) as we have been able to mine from the ground ounces of silver bullion. 

This does not include the other forms of money that have been created on the institutional side (M3, derivatives, excess reserves).  This is just M2. 

It also does not show the fact that almost all of the silver that has been mined has already been used for industrial purposes.  It has not been saved. 

There are no central bank reserves of silver bullion anywhere in the world, as with gold (Fort Knox, Switzerland, Fed Reserve Bank of New York).  There is no mythical stockpile waiting to be handed out.  It's gone. 

Investor implications:

1. Excessive growth in fiat money supply devalues the purchasing power of each dollar in circulation.  This is not unlike a company that continues to recklessly issue new shares of stock, whereby the initial investors suffer from loss of proportional equity value. 
2. Items that cannot be grown at comparable rates to fiat growth will eventually require more dollars to acquire.  This manifests itself as apparent price 'appreciation'.  
3. The greater the difference in growth rates, the sharper the eventual price correction as surplus fiat dollars flow into the less prevalent real asset.  The transfer rates from fiat to real may be continuous and steady, or mostly dormant with short, sharp corrective moves. 

This example is simplified, but shows one way to put relative asset classes into context with one another, especially when one is digital and the other is tangible.

Look at their relative prevalence.  Look at their rates of production.  Determine which is harder to produce.  Then look at how much remains available for mass investment, should fiat supply see any imbalance and move to correct in a rapid fashion.

This approach will enable you to find ways to identify not just which asset class is undervalued, but when to trade out as it becomes fully valued so you can roll into the next opportunity. 

Isaac Newton never could have predicted Cash For Gold

Newton the conjurer

Sir Isaac Newton is rightly regarded as one of the most brilliant minds in human history.  Newton, associated with describing the Three Laws of  Motion that underpin modern physics (inertia, motion, and action/reaction), also described the law of universal gravitation.  He was also one of the initial discoverers of what we would come to know as calculus when he was around 21-22 years of age. 

But these major advancements in thought were not what Newton himself considered his prime lifetime achievements.  In fact later in life he considered his discoveries in calculus to be a product of youthful curiosity, but not his magnum opus.

You see, later in life he was Master of the Royal Mint, responsible for setting the standards of coinage and chasing down counterfeiters and debasers of the money supply.  His knighthood was bestowed by Queen Anne in 1705 because of his devotion to the goals of the Royal Mint, from whence he became known as Sir Isaac Newton. 

As Master of the Mint Newton also believed he could deduce the process by which base metals could be transformed into gold.  He considered his works in alchemy to be superior science and encoded them in riddle to keep their secrets intact.  This was only responsible... after all, if you had deduced the secret to transforming base elements into valuable gold, you wouldn't want to exactly publish the findings.  He felt his research into alchemy would be where his fame would be more likely enshrined, not the Principia. 

The ruling classes were in perpetual pursuit for a means to expand their gold supply so as to fund their trivial pursuits of war, conquest, glory, and riches.  Notwithstanding the inflationary effects of gold supply per se, the mystical promise of alchemy held sway over centuries across many European dynasties, western and eastern, northern and southern. Anyone who possessed intellect and intellectual gravitas on the subject was amply rewarded with resources and title.

Today we look upon the elemental transformation of base metals into gold as folly, a fairy tale, failed magic.  While the specifics of alchemy in this sense have been thoroughly discredited by modern chemistry, the desire to convince the masses that worthless assets are in fact worth much more has not ceased.

In more recent decades alchemy has come full circle, in an extraordinary way.  We are witnessing one of those few times in human history when the masses have become convinced fiat currency is gold while the bullion itself is ephemeral.  People consider paper dollars the superior asset, and gold the one to be tossed away. 

Pied Piper for the Rich
The Cash-for-Gold industry has taken the popular imagination by storm.  In this business people are offered money for their gold and silver jewelry, either through the mail, on the spot at impromptu fairs set up in hotel conference rooms, or 'Gold Parties' at people's homes where they invite their friends to come for drinks, snacks, to socialize, and then sell their gold.  Brilliant.

This is wildly pounced upon by hundreds of thousands of people who are eager to cash in.

With few exceptions I find this shocking.  Bullion assets are the supreme protection for the common people against ravages of decimating hyperinflation, where cash money depreciates and becomes worthless for acquiring the basic necessities of life.

Gold and silver metals are extremely rare.  They are hard to find in the earth's crust, difficult to mine, and expensive to refine into coinage, bar, and jewelry forms.  They are a wealth reserve of considerable intrinsic value that is being extracted from the population by the moneyed interests for bits of paper that have no intrinsic value. 

Alchemy reversed.  People desire digital dollars that depreciate from inflation more than bullion assets that cannot degrade.  Incredible.

This industry, who claims to be helping people in a time a need, is being dishonest.  These shadowy companies extract from the common man his last bit of real wealth from his pocket and replaces it with rapidly depreciating paper.

Sir Isaac Newton tried to transform worthless assets into gold bullion.  Cash for gold involves helping people surrender their gold bullion for worthless assets.  My god in heaven.


A Dictator King's Dream:  convincing the world to measure gold in dollars, not dollars in gold
Seigniorage is a term that refers to the centuries old game that ruling classes would play with the money supply.  Here, the trick was to convince the people that the money they used was worth a higher value than its intrinsic metal content, and therefore usable for everyday transactions.

If you could get the people to believe that a gold coin with a value stamp of 10 units of money that had just 1 unit of gold was worth the same in practice as another gold coin that had a full 10 units of gold.. you were a very happy monarch.  You could effectively mint 10x as much money for the same amount of gold and fund lavish palaces, build your patronage, acquire more land, and conquer new nations.

Cash-for-Gold is the ultimate king's dream.  Cash-for-Gold means people are willing to exchange a fully-valued gold coin for paper that has zero gold content whatsoever.  No ruling monarch in history was ever able to pull off such a feat without severe disruptions in food supply (bread riots), civil breakdown, and rapid collapse.

But this is what is happening in the United States right now.  On the average we value dollars more than gold.  We measure gold in dollars.  We do not measure dollars in gold or silver ounces.

In 500 years the dollar may be a footnote in the annals of world history, a transient currency of a past nation-state.  But the future will still have gold and silver bullion in some form.

Just who's buying all the gold and silver anyway?

Critical thinking is not what most Americans are known for possessing in great quantity.  NASCAR, UFC, booze cruises, yes, these are emblems of our mythical 'heartland' America.  But not questioning what we're told on TV.

I don't know but... just who is paying real cash for all the gold and silver that comes across the table?  People seem stoked when they come out of these transactions with a fistful of dollars, thinking they've just scored a great deal.  They never seem to think who is on the other side of the table... if bullion is really at an all time high (as the ads claim) and poised to fall, why the FUCK would they be buying at all?  Wouldn't it make sense to NOT buy and actually be SELLING it back to people at the peak?

Here is my answer.  The interests that are behind the people paying cash see the end game coming, and it will not be pretty for those holding only cash and cash equivalents.

The Federal Reserve no longer has to print money because they have computers that can do it faster, and more is coming.  The more digital dollars that zing through the system means the dollar price of real tangible stuff that can't be e-multiplied will rise.  Bullion will be exchangeable for more real stuff later than it will today, so the smart money sees all this as a chance to buy low.

We can't mine enough gold now to meet industrial, central bank and investment demand for physical, so the deficit must come from what's called 'recycling' (e.g. cash for gold).


What would you rather have, $350 or $18,250?

Assume in 1971 you (or your parents) were sitting on a cash pile of $350. Gold was $35 per ounce.  $350 was a nice chunk of change in 1971 and could buy about as much as $2,037 would today.

You have a choice of stuffing that cash in the wall for later, or trading it for gold and stashing the gold instead.

Flash forward to 2011.  Your $350 cash pile would buy a lot less in 2011 dollars than in 1970 dollars... losing about 83% of it's purchasing power over 40 years. 

Your 10 ounces of gold today would be tradable for more dollars.  A lot more.  At $1,825 per ounce your 10 ounces would be worth $18,250 in dollar terms.

Today, what do you think will hold its value better for the next 30 years?  $1,825 cash stuffed in your wall, or one gold ounce (or 45 ounces of silver bullion) kept equally secure?


You cannot be invited to leave the herd
I would invite you to leave the herd but that would be herd thinking.  Do it yourself.  Thinking outside the box does not mean you become some hermit in the wilderness.  It just means you practice thinking about things critically, and develop immunity to talking-head syndrome.

Game?

Here's a practice pitch:  when it comes to bullion, stop thinking of it in 'dollars per oz'.  Instead think how much paper is required to trade for one ounce of bullion.  As in, "today my one ounce of gold can be traded for $1,825 pieces of paper with Washington's portrait on them."

I rather suspect.. that's how Sir Isaac Newton would have thought of it.  

Silver Bubble? Or Ground Floor? (Part II) : Thundering Herds Blow

Thundering Herds blow bubbles.  They cannot stamp them out. 

The problem with investment bubbles is that most people seem to know what they are, are scared of getting wiped out by one, but yet cannot accurately describe what makes something a bubble.

They describe bubbles as something that will cause them catastrophic loss.  Many times they get their information on the bubble of the day from .. well, the financial media.  Which as I discussed in Part I is not always objective and likes to keep you nervous, on edge, and tuned in. 

Several good writers have already summarized the main phases of a classic bubble.  I did not create the below chart but have seen it in multiple places.  I am reposting this image from Steve Blank's interesting postings, who has a series focusing more or less on VC and technology prospects.

In this chart the Smart Money moves in stealth mode to acquire the asset while Awareness gradually picks up with other Institutional players, followed by some light cashing in, followed by a rapid Mania phase as the Public moves en masse as Media starts giving it attention.  This creates a self-sustaining burst of greed and delusion/fear.  Near the peak people are convinced they have reached a New Paradigm where the old rules no longer apply, then a brief pop which people deny and are reassured by false starts before a catastrophic crash, Despair, then a final return to Equilibrium in the Blow-Off Phase. 

Question:   For extra credit, if the life of an investment bubble is so simple to identify, then why the hell do we have them?

Fear Factor 

Yes Virginia, it is true that a collapsing bubble will cause you catastrophic loss if you purchased at the peak … and especially if you used leverage to do so.  But this isn’t enough.  Fear of loss or misuse of leverage could apply to any investment. Stocks go up and down, that’s life.  But this does not mean stocks are always bubbles anymore than getting in a car guarantees you will be in a fender bender.  The fact is that nobody likes losing money.  I don’t. 

The financial industry has a cute name for Fear Factor:  “risk tolerance”.  

They can’t call it OMG RISK because people will freak out.  But hey, ‘tolerant’ is good, right?  Let’s call it ‘risk tolerance’.  Who said Marketing was a worthless degree.   

The truth is that investment bubbles are rare.  Not impossible, but rare.  The tulip mania and South Sea schemes were famous bubbles but these happened hundreds of years ago when people openly screwed each other in smoky candle-lit rooms and carried daggers (or muskets) in their pockets.  The stock market crash of 1929 was the result of a stock bubble, but we didn’t have another one of these until the dot-com/telecom meltdown of 2000, seventy years later.  Then the housing bubble that peaked in 2006 a half decade after that.

The timing of these last two actually puts Alan Greenspan, former chair of the Federal Reserve, as having the dubious distinction of presiding over the central bank and guiding its monetary policies during not just one, but two major investment bubbles. Does anyone know how the French say ‘fuckingdee fuck flippity flip fucking idiot’? 

No, I believe that most of the time the Fear people have when they talk about investing is not bubble fear but plain ole’ low risk tolerance.  Since infotainment sources are echo chambers for institutional interests, they’re not going to get any warm fuzzies about bullion investing from them.  These are people who only invest when they hear about it from 20 sources, vs. looking at the data themselves and making up their own minds. 
   
Even more absurd (to me) are when people look to their peers for information, for whatever reason assuming they represent some broader consensus, before making a move themselves. 

Ironically, this is the opposite of how ‘buy-low/sell-high’ actually works.  If everyone around you is already convinced of the value proposition and has committed money to it, then you’ve lost the low-value part of ‘buy-low/sell-high’. Party on. 

Bubbles are Three Dimensional.  Here are my Three Rules for detecting whether you are staring at a bubble. 

Bubble Rule #1:

Rule #1:  Those who pronounce a bubble is currently here must show their track record with respect to predicting the last two bubbles (dot-com and housing).  

Corollary to Rule #1:  Those who deny a bubble must show why the conditions of a bubble are not met.  

Just think about this for a minute:  of all the talking heads warning of a gold and silver bubble, where were they during the rapid inflation of the housing bubble?   Were they warning people to not buy a house?  To sell their bank stocks?  Were they jumping up and down begging people to sell their houses at the peak and move into rentals?  No they weren't.  So why the Johnny Leader routine?

In fact I seem to recall these guys pasting on make-up and waving the pom-poms for housing all the way up, then denying its decline for a good year or two after the pop had wiped out millions of people and destroyed several banks.

And by the way, just how many of these pundits, policymakers and media celebrities apologized for being wrong?  Offered a mea culpa or analysis of how and why their gold-plated analysis failed? 

Lack of insight is especially egregious for those in positions of power, who wanted that responsibility and who ought to know what bubbles are and be advising the masses when they arise, but yet couldn't see one forming right in front of their face:

"Overall, while local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances [in housing], a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity."  

-- Recorded remarks by Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, Oct 19 2004.   

Chairman Greenspan gave this speech just about 18 months before the high water mark of the housing bubble was reached.  It took him years after it popped to even admit error, and even then his admissions were qualified, parsed out in bits, and equivocal.  Greenspan should at least have the decency to own up to his responsibilities and take accountability for his actions in a manner that Ayn Rand (his intellectual and philosophical mentor) would have demanded. 

The fact is that bubbles, while rare, are hard for most people to see precisely because they are either in the party or trying to get in, which leads to the second rule:

Bubble Rule #2:

Rule #2:  Thundering masses cannot see bubbles, because they are the ones who inflate them.

Corollary to Rule #2:  If the masses declare an asset to be forming a bubble, then no such bubble can form.

Just think about this for a minute.  No, I mean it.  Seriously think about it.

If the popular consensus believes something to be in bubble territory and acts in their own self interest, then this means there are not enough buyers for the asset and extreme price appreciation is not possible.  Thus, no bubble.  Bubbles by their very definition can only grow if investing mania for the asset class is triggered, pumping up the apparent face value of the asset in extremis.

In this scenario, the Thundering Herd creates radical price imbalances that the Smart Money sees and takes advantage of, buying low because no one else can see the bullion behind the bullshit. 

Bubble Rule #3:

Rule #3:  Bubbles require cheerleaders.

Corollary to Rule #3:  If the cheerleaders are not cheering the asset, they're probably sleeping with the other team.

Is any further explanation needed?

**************************************
I would love for every reader to be in the Smart Money crowd.  Don't be a follower, be dispassionate.  Search for data, look at data.  Look at who is giving you advice.  Ask what their agendas are and why you should take them seriously.

Striking out in a new direction is scary, true.  It flies against millions of years of human evolution, evolution that conditioned us to stick together and socialize our human experience.  But when it comes to money we have to be willing to be the monkey that takes a nibble at undiscovered fruit and see if it is good for us.  It is important to take chances because that is how we grow.  That is how we learn.  When it comes to money, that is how we move from being dumb money in the middle of the herd to the Smart Money that senses the opportunity.

In the final post coming up, I will be showing a few data points that show where Silver bullion happens to be in relation to its current and recent price points, supply and demand.  I believe Silver is somewhere between the Smart Money and early Awareness phases, and odds are strong it will never form a bubble.   At least not in fiat Dollar terms.

Peace out. 

Happy Belated Birthday, US Dollar!

Forty years ago on August 15th, President Nixon took the US Dollar off its link to gold bullion, officially setting the greenback out on a wild fiat ride.

So best birthday wishes for the fiat US Dollar, as it crosses the 40 year mark.  (the big announcement comes at 53 seconds)

Silver bubble? Or ground floor? (Part I)

There is speculation in a few circles that precious metals such as silver and gold are in a bubble right now.  Such conversations in the mainstream financial press seem designed to scare individual investors from participating in purchasing bullion.

I do not think silver is in a bubble and cannot find convincing arguments in the press or the data that would support such a conclusion.

I want to summarize in three blog posts, what I see from the silver-as-a-bubble crowd first, then describe hallmarks of a bubble, then finally show where silver bullion is in relation to objective standards that typify bubbles.  Lastly I will describe something I believe to be in a bubble right now, but it ain't bullion.

 Part I:  Why the Financial Media freaks people out about silver.  

Buy more funds.   Buy more now.  Buy more funds, and be happy.  

The most immediate problem I have with the financial media's apparent take on what to buy is advertising bias.  This is a powerful market force.

Most people read up on investment options and look for advice by reading/watching the financial press and related online sites.  Financial media in turn earn a lot of their revenue from companies who advertise, companies that make their money by selling investors mutual funds, credit cards, bank products and so forth and charging investors fees.  For example, each invested dollar usually that goes into some kind of mutual fund is levied annual management fees.  If a fund has $100 million dollars in invested assets and charges 1.5% per year for management, they will earn $1.5 million for management of the fund.

With this kind of fee revenue at stake, competition for investment dollars is fierce.  Think about all the ads you see for E*Trade, Fidelity, Pacific Life, whatever.. if this is how hard they work against each other for your attention, do you think this industry as a group is going to be kind to any press that offer serious alternatives to the stock and fund investment scheme?  If you buy a bar of silver and hold it in your house, well, that doesn't earn them any management fee revenue.

The same rationale is also why you see a lot of discussion about the 'safety' and 'diversification' aspects of mutual funds vs. individual stocks.  Press about individual stocks seem to skew towards emotional or momentum styles that are mysterious and frightful (think "Mad Money" with Jim Cramer).

But if you decide to buy a stock and then hold it, they don't earn any residual annual management fee income as they would if you purchased a mutual fund.  In this case they need to get you thinking about buying and selling frequently to trigger more fee revenue in the form of trading commissions.  This is why several times a day there are headlines that scream towards fear factor:

"Is it time for investors to buy?"
"Is it time for investors to sell?"
"Should investors panic?"

... and so forth.  

They want you to market time (or try), to move in and out quickly, to leave you with the impression that this is how all the big boys do it downtown and make all the big dough.  Most who try fail quietly.  But the marketing continues!  Ever hear of the pitch...

"make xzy number of trades in a quarter and qualify for a low low! LOW! commission fee per trade!"

But here's a hint:  when sailing your boat you only tack for very good reasons.  Not every wave needs active navigation.

The only thing they are missing are the sounds of Vegas slot machines when you actually buy or sell a stock. 

There be pirates in your living room.

Another clear example of an argument they make against purchasing bullion concerns supposed risk and costs of holding bullion.  Usually this takes the form of apparently sage advice instructing the reader that they have increased risk of home theft and loss if they hold bullion at home, or ominously warn about high storage costs if they hold it in a safe deposit box.

This doesn't quite hold water for several reasons.

Number one, every investment has risks.  How many people lost a lot of real dollars from the Great Recession via decimation of their portfolios, often by these same 'objective' fund money managers?  How many of us know friends and family who have had their accounts or cards hacked or stolen for illicit use?  Even those of us who put money in a plain checking account or CD lost money, because savings rates fell to near-zero and inflation went much higher;  the purchasing power of those accounts has eroded by at least 12% in just four years alone, and savings rates are not going to go up anytime soon. 

Second, bullion itself is quite dense, small, and easily hidden if you know what you are doing and just put a little common sense into the stashing.  Thieves breaking into your house (hopefully this never happens!) aren't going to search every crevice looking for bullion;  likely, they are after your TV, computer, jewelry or loose cash.  And most insurance companies cover you up to certain amounts of bullion anyway, or have cheap riders. 

If cost is your only consideration... storage of bullion is probably as cheap or cheaper than your money manager.

Many people already have bank accounts that qualify them for free or reduced price safe deposit boxes.  Even the cost of a full price box is only a few dollars per month, and can store considerable amounts of bullion because it is so small and dense.

Look at relative costs. Assume you have 500 ounces of silver in a safe deposit box.  At present prices of around $38 per ounce, and a safe deposit box annual fee of $50, you would have an effective expense ratio of $50 / ($38 x 500) = 0.26%.

Now compare this cost and expense ratio with a mutual fund.  Assume a 1.00% annual expense ratio (which is low for an actively managed fund):  $19,000 x 1.00% = $190 per year.  As a flat annual expense it will cost you nearly 4x more to 'store' your money with a fund company.

There are other factors as well with mutual funds, I know.  But I am pointing this out because it is the financial press that constantly brings up the cost issues involved with storing silver to discourage active investment.  So all I am doing here is putting that cost into context and showing you that their fee options on an invested per-dollar basis are actually much higher. 

Plus as an added benefit you would probably still have room in your safe deposit box left over for other important documents, such as back up ID copies, birth certificates, insurance paperwork, jewelry, and the like. 

And for god's sake, if you have bullion and roommates, just pay for a freakin' safe deposit box. 

In Part II I'm going to write more specifically how to detect a bubble generally, and specific attributes of bubble-talk as they relate to silver bullion. But the above is important because it is integral to why people misread bubbles.

COMEX default between Sept '12 - Mar '13? (don't get bumped from your flight)

Silver is rapidly disappearing from the COMEX vaults.

Let me back up.

The COMEX stands for the Commodity Exchange, and is one of the world's main clearinghouses where commodities such as silver, gold, sugar, and other commodities trade.

Let me back up. 

'Trade' is a word that usually means exchange of something for money.  In the parlance of the COMEX, 'trade' refers to how instruments called futures contracts are valued.

Let me back up one more time. 

In the stock market, the price you see for a given stock on the market is usually a fairly direct function of how much demand there is for those shares against available supply of sellers.  The more shares for sale that exist relative to demand for shares, then the price will fall. Conversely, higher demand for shares against smaller supply means higher prices.

When you hear the newscaster talk about the stock price of a company rising or falling, it is in fact a measure of how much the company is worth on a per share basis, based upon its future business prospects.  Multiply that price by the number of shares in existence and you can value the worth of the whole company (called the 'market capitalization'). 

The futures market is not the same as the stock market.  In the futures market one is speculating on underlying future worth of "real" stuff.  This "real" stuff could be oil, or sugar, or gold, or wheat.  One is effectively entering into a bet that the future value of something will be worth some value higher or lower than its present value, and usually 'borrows' most of the money needed to make the bet highly profitable.  Those that enter the bet hoping for higher prices are called "longs" and those wishing the value to fall are called "shorts".

You can think of these transactions as bets that have an expiration date.  At the expiration date one side wins and one side loses.  The bets can be big or small, but they are what's called a zero-sum game.

Most people that directly participate in the stock market wouldn't stand a chance in the futures market.  In the stock market one at least knows what they possess, namely, an equitable share interest in a market entity, usually rights to vote in an annual meeting, potential for share price appreciation and proportional interest in dividends declared by its board of directors.

The stock market is regulated much more stringently than the futures market, and has many more participants.  The number of dominant players in the futures market is much more concentrated and a lot of the data is not visible through normal means.  Thus, the visible price one can see in futures price quotations does not carry the same implications for supply and demand as one might expect, based upon ones experience with the more transparent stock market.   

On the other hand, the long-term future demand for 'real' stuff is much less certain;  how many oranges for OJ will be grown next season, accounting for frost and hurricanes?  How much demand by industry will there actually be for silver in 1001 electronic gadgets, and what are the odds of recession that would cause that demand to fall rapidly?  How much sugar will be diverted to ethanol production and/or will government subsidies to the corn lobby be renewed?

These kinds of questions underlie many futures bets, but just know there is still a lot of gut instinct and non-scientific hunches that feed the beast.  Sometimes some rationale or another is trotted out for the media to explain why the price of something did this or that, which may or may not be just a bunch of bullshit. 

Oh, and the House minimums for playing in the futures market can be quite substantial.  Picture a stockbroker that says,

"great!  I'll place your stock buy order but the minimum order you can place is $50,000 cash, or just $5,000 out of pocket but only if you agree to borrow the other $45,000 on margin with xyz fees and interest charges.  And by the way, if the market ticks against your bet just a tiny bit, you could lose your $5,000 and be required to pony up quite a bit more just to break even."


This means when you hear the newscaster talk about the price of silver or gold rising or falling, this is in fact a measure of the net betting activity from a concentrated group of market speculators who have a lot of dough (whose interests are most likely not your interests) who are making bookie odds on the short term worth of real stuff.  Technically if you are only in it to make money it doesn't matter whether you are long or short.  It only matters whether you are right in the direction of the bet, and also the time before your bet "expires" (all futures contracts "bets" come with an expiration date by which they must perform).

It's complicated but just know the dynamics of the futures markets are not directly comparable to the stock markets, other than that both involve trying to make money.  Which is why people dive in headfirst.  Just don't extrapolate what you know about the stock market to the futures market or what I write later here won't make sense to you.  

The goal of entering into a futures contract is to be on the winning side of your bet (long or short) when the music stops, and then decide what to do with your winnings.  The reason people do futures contracts for money gain is because (1) the amounts of money that can be made can very large, and (2) it operates with much less transparency than the stock market, at least, from a mass media perspective. 

In the stock market there is proportional ownership of enterprise with a bias towards long-term equity growth. In the futures market one is making casino bets, bets that terminate when the roulette wheel stops spinning, with the prospects on the short side being near-term and prospects on the long side further out.

Lets assume you win the futures bet when the contract expires.  You have two choices;  take possession of the real stuff in the contract or roll it over into a new bet.  Traditionally rolling it over into a new bet is what market players do, since all they want is the cash.  This makes sense for many reasons.  How many people betting in the futures market actually want to go and collect 1000 barrels of oil (42 gal / bbl)?  Where would they store it?  What would they do with all that unrefined crude?

No, the market mechanisms usually encourage rolling over of contracts into new contracts, with net cash outs between winners and losers at each expiration point. 

But what if you want the physical commodity instead of the cash?

This is where it gets really interesting with respect to silver.

Many futures contract winners in recent years who won their bets have not been accepting cash, per custom.  They have been demanding under their contract rights possession of the underlying physical silver.

One might think this should not be a problem.  But the way our system has evolved, the COMEX and other like exchanges allow more than one person to make bets on the same underlying physical.

A lot more.

This is a little like an airline that not only slightly oversells their seats on the plane, betting on a certain number of no-shows so they don't have to bump other passengers.. but selling the same seats on the plane many, many times over.  Then being surprised when everyone shows up demanding to be seated.

The COMEX only has so many seats on the plane.  It only has so many ounces of physical silver.  And it is being drawn down fast.

Picture an airline that has sold 100 tickets (yes 100 tickets) for every available seat on the plane but keeps the pricing as if only slightly more than one ticket is sold per seat.  Structural imbalances between true supply (small) and actual demand (large), build.  Are you still wondering why people are deciding to take the physical ounces before the bidding war really kicks in?

Over the last few years the available supply of physical silver bullion in the COMEX has plummeted as players in the futures market have demanded delivery of their physical bullion in lieu of cash winnings.  People don't want the flight vouchers and free cookies in the food court any more, they want the seat on the plane. They sense that the world supply of silver is very low, much less than gold, and are seizing the opportunity to hoard the physical before everyone wakes up to the price imbalances between gold (which as of this writing is 45x more expensive per troy oz than silver) and silver.

The COMEX has never run out of silver before, and the data on their historical stocks available to meet futures demand for physical is *not* as available as price quotations one might want in the stock market.  In fact, the COMEX only posts its available supply once per day, and does not make historical data on its warehouses available as a historical download.

Fortunately in the age of the internet there are enough people who have diligently gone to the COMEX site once per day and recorded the daily figures.

The results are striking (click for link).

In just two years the amount of silver in the COMEX available to meet demands for physical redemption has plummeted from 87 million ounces to just over 27 million ounces today, a decline of 60 million ounces or 30 million per year.

The rate of decline has not been precisely linear so allowing for a few flatline periods this would mean that at present redemption rates (assuming no non-linear 'gangpiles' as supplies tighten) then the COMEX would be depleted of all its airline seats in 13 - 18 months from present (assuming 1.4 MM - 2.0 MM oz per month).

The point of total or near depletion could trigger severe disruptions in the price setting mechanism of the markets as they are currently constructed.  Picture again our airline gate scenario, where the last few remaining seats on the plane are live auctioned and the price skyrockets as the pool of available buyers with cash shrink and frenzy sets in.  Market observers call this 'parabolic' action.

But the price, while up 8x from 8 years ago, is at a level nowhere near reflecting its decline in physical availability.  (remember!  I said earlier don't extrapolate what you know about supply and demand characteristics from the stock market to the futures market!)

How can this be?  Well, the airline just kept increasing the number of seats it would sell (paper), to mask the ugly truth that they didn't have enough seats (physical) to go around!  How else do you think we got to the point where 100 ounces of paper silver now float around in the system for every ounce of physical bullion?

This obscene amount of leverage was forced out of the market under oath at a hearing impaneled by the Commodities and Future Trading Commission on March 25, 2010. 

Why would they suppress the price of silver?  The answer is obvious.  Because it is in their best interests to do so.  Carry trade.  Near-term bonus pools.  Asset price inflation.  All of these are put at risk if the world demands a halt to fiat explosion in lieu of monetary constants.

Buy low, sell high.  We all know it.  Few really see it.  Fewer still act on it.

The good news is here you don't have to try and rustle the house minimum to play at the Big Boy table.  You can buy the physical now, from local dealers, from APMEX, or from other reputable sites (avoid eBay frauds), while it it still out there for acquisition.  You do not need to bet the farm.

Just hedge your forward investments proportionate to your outlook.

If you think the odds of a restructuring in value between digital dollars of the BenBernank, depleting COMEX silver bullion and future demand are 1% in your favor (and 99% against.. meaning all is well and DC knows what they are doing), then devote 1% of your income to acquiring the physical.  If you think the odds in your favor are 3%, then devote 3% of your income.  And so on.  Dollar cost average.  Buy on dips.  Buy on peaks.  Whatever.

Hell you likely already pay more percentage-wise for car insurance, life insurance, and property insurance, and will hopefully never need those programs either.

Diversify, bitches.

Forewarned, forearmed.

Buying every house in the United States. Quantifying the remaining quantitative easing.

The dance of a trillion dollars.
 
On March 30, 2010 I created a post describing where I thought extra printed money in the system was accumulating, back at the Fed itself.  Simply put, many of the extra digital dollars that were being conjured into existence through phony asset purchases were bouncing from server to server in seconds, and winding back up at the Central Bank electronic accounts as Excess Reserves. 

Digital dollars are of course the end result of a flim-flam game of asset purchases and repurchases by the Fed and the banks and other major financial players.  This was done to try and paper over literal insolvency that happened when the music stopped and all the financial imbalances hit critical mass.  The head of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the rest of his compatriots do not like to be accused outright of printing money.  So instead the way this game works is that the Federal Reserve accepts as "collateral" any non-performing asset held in the financial system at full value, and credits the seller with dollars in their account for the asset.  By calling it an even trade, they claim they are not printing money, but trading one asset for money.

Now they communicate all this through the glorious language of economics, which is good for them because most in our media get bored with it and relegate a lot of the details to quiet bylines.

Let me offer a real world example that explains how this works.  Picture the above transaction to be like a car title loan company accepting a title to an automobile that has been totaled and smashed, and then loaning the person full face value as if the car itself was in brand new condition.  This happens to work out great for the person who wrecked the car, since they don't have to make much in the way of payments to the car title loan company, as the company has already agreed to repossess the physical car as collateral if they fail to make payments.  This is the bailout.  The person can take all that money and go and buy a new car.  Nifty. 

The car title loan company has effectively unleashed new money for circulation in the system, by accepting a junked car for cash and pretending the junked car was worth far more than its actual worth. 

But wait, this doesn't work out too well for the car title loan company, does it?  In a normal market, the title loan company would go bankrupt immediately, so no such transaction would ever occur in real life.

But in our bailout program, this is what the car title loan company did.  And you are on the hook for making them whole on their bad trades.  Our leaders in Washington along with those in the clubby world of the Federal Reserve, bankers and Wall Street, created an agreement whereby the American people were put on the hook for bailing out the car title loan company so they could keep making these trades of junked cars for cash with ... bankers and Wall Street, and give them more money to pay for bigger executive bonus pools. 

If this sounds short-sighted to you, then you know more than most of our elected delegation in Congress, who voted the whole thing into existence.  No strings attached, blank check signed by Uncle Sam. 

Our entire economic future was effectively mortgaged in the form of excess dollar creation.  The financiers now know that if they wreck their cars in the future, that the taxpayer will come in and bail them out and take their junked vehicles at full dealer price value.

Some call this 'moral hazard'.

I call this a con game, a three card Monte parlor trick years in the making, that our elected leaders got sucked into hook, line and sinker.

There are many ways this could have been done that would have been punitive, and which were suggested and shot down at the time by this same directionless DC mob.  

For just one example.. total compensation of everyone employed by bailed out institutions should have been capped to no more than some predetermined level, say... no one could make more the President of the United States while relying upon taxpayer money.  If executives were too uncomfortable going from millions a year to the salary of the mere President of the United States, well, all the better that they work faster to clean house, and make the changes needed in their companies to bolster their reserves, purge the bad loans and operate their business sensibly so they could get back to Big Bonus time.

But of course the government allowed all these bozos to run off with all their bananas without even a spanking.

So much for oversight.

If Aladdin were alive today he wouldn't bother with the ruckus with the Genie.  The digital dollar machine requires mere keystrokes. 

Quantifying remaining Quantitative Easing

But where are we now?  Well in just another year with the cutely-named Quantitative Easing or QE-I, QE-II programs in effect, more digital dollars have been injected into the system and some of these dollars have made their round trip back to the Central Bank:

An additional $1.6 trillion dollars now exist that did not exist by August of 2008.  The Fed and its defenders argue this is not monetary printing, because they have assets of equal value in their balance sheet so it zeros out (remember, they are counting wrecked cars at new dealer price value to make this math work).  I already talked about the hyperinflationary dangers earlier so won't repeat those here.

However I also look at this $1.6 trillion figure in another way, as a proxy for systemic losses incurred by the system and a benchmark for how much more printing they may do. 

If this is a reasonable assumption, then one can use estimates of total housing value losses and Excess Reserves to make assumptions about how much more digital printing will be done. 


In the year 2000 the total value of US Housing Real Estate was measured by the Federal Reserve in the Flow of Funds Table to be $11.5 trillion dollars. 

At the peak of the housing bubble in 2006 the Fed estimated that household real estate had nearly doubled in value (in six years!) to $22.7 trillion dollars.

As of June 2011 the value of household real estate had fallen by $6.7 trillion or 29% to $16 trillion dollars, for a retracement of 60% back towards 2000 levels.

A loss of another $5 trillion puts us back to the same level as the year 2000.

Long-term residential real estate rises at about 1% per year in inflation adjusted terms.  So long-term values the total value of real estate in the United States should, by that measure, be $12.8 trillion today over year 2000 levels.  This would also imply that at the present level of $16 trillion we are still overvaluing housing stock in this country by 20%, or $3.2 trillion dollars. 

So if the $1.6 trillion Excess Reserves is a proportional proxy for losses to date then we can create a ratio.  ($1.6 trillion Excess Reserves) / ($6.7 trillion decline in household real estate values) = 24%. 

Should the fair long-term value of housing be $12.8 trillion today and we have $3.2 trillion to go, then the Excess Reserves statistic would grow by an additional ($3.2 trillion x 24% = $770 billion dollars).

I know all this may sound cumbersome but since we are dealing with non-transparent policymakers and clueless elected leaders, it's important to be able to think critically.  So just be patient and re-read as necessary to understand the steps:  Housing values went up by $11.2 trillion dollars in six years, and have fallen by $6.7 trillion dollars since the peak.  That $6.7 trillion dollar loss has been shifted around the system and eventually backstopped by the Federal Reserve, who took a lot of junked cars at full value in order to make the lenders whole, and guaranteed the deal without the consent of the American taxpayer (but with the consent of their elected leaders).

Now, the General Accounting Office recently released their Fed Audit and showed that from 2007 through 2010 bailouts summed to $16 trillion dollars.  (page 131)

$16 trillion dollars in bailout money was created.   That amount of money is enough to practically buy every house in the United States at their present value. 

$16 trillion in bailouts for real home declines that were much less, only $6 trillion over the same time frame.  Why were systemic losses much more than real estate declines?  Remember the financiers treated all this like a casino... ever hear of 'doubling-down' in blackjack?  Something like that. 

Anyway $1.6 trillion wound up as Excess Reserves back at the Central Bank.  So this means that for every $1.00 of bailout money secretly committed by the Fed (it took an act of Congress to force them to release the total amount, mind you), $0.10 cents wound up back at the Fed. Or put another way, every $1.00 in Excess Reserves means that $10.00 dollars in bailout/quantitative easing/glad-handing was done. 

So if we end up with another $770 billion dollars in Excess Reserves, then this would imply another $7.7 trillion in Quantitative Easing remains ($770 billion Excess Reserves x $10.00 implied bailout dollars). 

I could be off by trillions here.  My logic could be all wrong.  My assumptions imply a linear or constant relationship in these factors over time and I don't think that is correct.

But I have nothing in the way of proprietary data to use for modeling.  Nothing in the way of the kinds of inputs those inside the system have had at their fingertips for years about bond quality, payment history, loan data.  None of that is public like stock prices or quarterly earnings reports.  The people analyzing that data and making decisions have either been blind, clueless, or in on the game and thereby stacking the odds for personal gain.

So until we have more people in Congress that force better release of data.. we're stuck making crude projections based upon sparse data points... and jumping for the bailout switch every time a banker/speculator jumps out of the dark at us and screams "BOO!".