Members
-
Topics
Archives
-
-
Recent Posts
-
-
Investor Education
Market Return After Exceptional Years
Dollar Cost Averaging Tool
Dow Theory: The Formation of a Line
Dividend Capture Strategy Analysis
Golden Cross – How Golden Is It?
Debunked – Death Cross
Work Smart, Not Hard
Charles H. Dow, Father of Value Investing
It's All About the Dividends
Dow Theory: Buying in Scales
How to Avoid Losses
When Dividends are Canceled
Cyclical and Secular Markets
Inflation Proof Myth
What is Fair Value?
Issues with P-E Ratios
Beware of Gold Dividends
Gold Standard Myth
Lagging Gold Stocks?
No Sophisticated Investors
Dollar down, Gold up?
Problems with Market Share
Aim for Annualized Returns
Anatomy of Bear Market Trade
Don’t Use Stop Orders
How to Value Earnings
Low Yields, Big Gains
Set Limits, Gain More
Ex-Dividend Dates -
-
Historical Data
1290-1950: Price Index
1670-2012: Inflation Rate
1790-1947: Wholesale Price Cycle
1795-1973: Real Estate Cycle
1800-1965: U.S. Yields
1834-1928: U.S. Stock Index
1835-2019: Booms and Busts
1846-1895: Gold/Silver Value
1853-2019: Recession/Depression Index
1860-1907: Most Active Stock Average
1870-2033: Real Estate Cycles
1871-2020: Market Dividend Yield
1875-1940: St. Louis Rents
1876-1934: Credit-New Dwellings
1896-1925: Inflation-Stocks
1897-2019: Sentiment Index
1900-1903: Dow Theory
1900-1923: Cigars and Cigarettes
1900-2019: Silver/Dow Ratio
1901-2019: YoY DJIA
1903-1907: Dow Theory
1906-1932: Barron's Averages
1907-1910: Dow Theory
1910-1913: Dow Theory
1910-1936: U.S. Real Estate
1910-2016: Union Pacific Corp.
1914-2012: Fed/GDP Ratio
1919-1934: Barron's Industrial Production
1920-1940: Homestake Mining
1921-1939: US Realty
1922-1930: Discount Rate
1924-2001: Gold/Silver Stocks
1927-1937: Borden Co.
1927-1937: National Dairy Products
1927-1937: Union Carbide
1928-1943: Discount Rate
1929-1937: Monsanto Co.
1937-1969: Intelligent Investor
1939-1965: Utility Stocks v. Interest Rates
1941-1967: Texas Pacific Land
1947-1970: Inventory-Sales Ratio
1948-2019: Profits v. DJIA
1949-1970: Dow 600? SRL
1958-1976: Gold Expert
1963-1977: Farmland Values
1971-2018: Nasdaq v. Gold
1971-1974: REIT Crash
1972-1979: REIT Index Crash
1986-2018: Hang Seng Index Cycles
1986-2019: Crude Oil Cycles
1999-2017: Cell Phone Market Share
2008: Transaction History
2010-2021: Bitcoin Cycles -
Interesting Read
Inside a Moneymaking Machine Like No Other
The Fuzzy, Insane Math That's Creating So Many Billion-Dollar Tech Companies
Berkshire Hathaway Shareholder Letters
Forex Investors May Face $1 Billion Loss as Trade Site Vanishes
Why the oil price is falling
How a $600 Million Hedge Fund Disappeared
Hedge Fund Manager Who Remembers 1998 Rout Says Prepare for Pain
Swiss National Bank Starts Negative
Tice: Crash is Coming...Although
More on Edson Gould (PDF)
Schiller's CAPE ratio is wrong
Double-Digit Inflation in the 1970s (PDF)
401k Crisis
Quick Link Archive
Category Archives: gold bugs
Gold Stock Indicator
As goes the market, so goes gold and gold stocks. We got the opportunity to see this action in spades today.
Gold Price: Affected by Gold ETF Outflows?
Subscriber F.H. brings our attention to a comment made by a gold fund manager. The manager suggested that the reason for gold’s weakness is primarily due to the liquidation occurring in gold ETFs. This implies that if there weren’t gold ETFs, then the price of gold would not decline as much as it already has (possibly not at all). However, our work on this topic is to check the data and show how easily this can be proven an incorrect analysis.
The chart below quickly demonstrates that gold outflows from ETFs is a symptom and not the cause in the decline of gold.
What did we do to arrive at the outcome above? First, we already knew that the price of gold declined -50% from the 1974 peak to the 1976 trough. This simple fact, within what is widely accepted as the last secular bull market for gold (1971-1980), acted as our starting point. In our myopic view, when comparing data, you must compare like to like, bull market to bull market and bear market to bear market. Therefore, selecting a set of data from the secular bear market in gold from 1980 to 1999 would result in flawed analysis.
Second, we took the period when gold went from $100 to its respective peak in 1974 and trough in 1976 then compared that period (in trading days; 833 days) to the current period going backwards 833 trading days.
Finally, we noted the fact that each period was with and without gold ETFs.
-
Please note that when we analyze any data, we only seek the “big picture” view, something akin to the horseshoes and hand grenades analogy.
What is our interpretation based on this rudimentary and potentially flawed approach?
First, gold ETF outflows are not the reason why gold is declining. Instead, gold ETF outflows are a mirror of the price of gold, albeit a somewhat distorted mirror.
Second, the decline in the price of gold has been normal within what we believe to be a secular bull market in gold. So far, gold has declined “only” –35% from the 2011 peak. This is contrasted with the aforementioned decline of –50% from the 1974 peak to the 1976 trough. What would change our view that we are no longer in a secular bull market in gold? Our highly biased view is that a bear market begins when gold and silver declines below our 1996 purchase price of the respective metals. However, the real world analysis says that a secular bear market is confirmed when gold attempts to go above the $1,895 price but fails. Lacking a qualified retest of the prior high, we will infer that we’re still within a secular bull market for precious metals.
Third, our view is that when a gold fund manager speaks they have only one message, gold related investments are always good and never bad. This opinion is the same for technology, biotechnology, small cap, large cap and international fund managers. There will never be a day when a fund manager says, “My fund is [I’m] not needed for the next several months or years.”
Our final interpretation is that when a gold fund manager uses the explanation that the outflow of funds from gold ETFs is the predominate reason for the price decline in gold, it demonstrates a significant lapse of analysis.
Transaction Alert
Posted in ABX, CRR, gold, gold bugs, Gold Stock Indicator, Transaction Alert
Tagged members
Does the Budget Surplus Affect the Price of Gold?
Subscriber R.G. asks:
“Will the precious metal sector be affected in anyway by the CBO budget surplus? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo-sees-115-billion-june-budget-surplus-2013-07-09”
Our response:
As far as we can tell, a government budget surplus or deficit does not materially correspond to an increase or decrease in the price of gold. Take a look at the chart below:
Taking artistic license on the matter, over the past 36 years, we’ve seen equally as many periods of correlation as divergence in the budget deficit/surplus and gold on a short-term basis. In addition, although the deficit has dramatically increased since 1980, the price of gold has fallen and increased equally as much on a long-term basis.
Our only conclusion is that there is no substantive value in seeing a relationship between the U.S. budget and the price of gold.
Citations:
-
Federal Reserve Economic Data. Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] (FYFSD), Millions of Dollars, Annual, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Link: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FYFSD, accessed July 9, 2013
-
USA Gold. Daily Gold Price History. Link: http://www.usagold.com/reference/prices/history.html, accessed July 9, 2013
Precious Metal Juniors or Majors?
Reader T.H. asks:
“What is your position on miner shares since the absolute destruction of share prices across the board? does it make a difference to differentiate between juniors and large miners? this sector could be setting up with spectacular gains if timed right.”
Our Response:
There are two types of gold stocks right now, investments and speculations. The investment category are those gold stocks that are members of the XAU or HUI index. Constituents of Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) are the gold stocks that are speculations.
Because many of the gold stocks that are part of the GDXJ will die on the vine, the best opportunity for taking advantage of the juniors is with GDXJ. However, keep in mind that GDXJ is a "product" and not an asset. Theoretically, assets can be held for the long-term while products must have a "sell by" date or price.
Below we have listed the gold and silver stocks that are ranked by payout ratio:
Symbol | Name | Price | P/E | EPS | Yield | P/B | % from yr low | payout ratio |
ABX | Barrick Gold Corporation | 14.11 | - | -0.86 | 5.8 | 0.61 | 5.13% | -93.02% |
KGC | Kinross Gold Corporation | 4.61 | - | -2.16 | 3.4 | 0.53 | 1.99% | -7.41% |
GOLD | Randgold Resources Limited | 62.69 | 14.1 | 4.44 | 0.8 | 2.09 | 0.66% | 10.81% |
GFI | Gold Fields Ltd. | 4.94 | 5.03 | 0.98 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 5.57% | 14.29% |
HL | Hecla Mining Co. | 2.78 | 61.48 | 0.04 | 0.4 | 0.69 | 4.40% | 25.00% |
BVN | Compa | 14.12 | 6.19 | 2.28 | 3.9 | 0.98 | 5.38% | 25.44% |
AU | AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. | 12.79 | 17.3 | 0.74 | 1.7 | 0.88 | 2.28% | 28.38% |
SLW | Silver Wheaton Corp. | 19.34 | 11.99 | 1.61 | 2.5 | 2.08 | 8.73% | 29.81% |
HMY | Harmony Gold Mining | 3.475 | 10.63 | 0.33 | 2.7 | 0.36 | 5.32% | 30.30% |
GG | Goldcorp Inc. | 24.31 | 13.74 | 1.77 | 2.5 | 0.84 | 9.45% | 33.90% |
FCX | Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold | 27.6 | 8.96 | 3.07 | 4.6 | 1.45 | 4.27% | 40.72% |
NEM | Newmont Mining Corporation | 27.12 | 8.27 | 3.29 | 5 | 0.97 | 2.26% | 42.55% |
AUY | Yamana Gold, Inc. | 9.19 | 18.4 | 0.5 | 2.8 | 0.87 | 7.37% | 52.00% |
AEM | Agnico Eagle Mines Limited | 27.8 | 18.6 | 1.49 | 3.3 | 1.37 | 0.22% | 59.06% |
RGLD | Royal Gold, Inc. | 42.04 | 32.76 | 1.28 | 1.9 | 1.12 | 8.28% | 62.50% |
GORO | Gold Resource Corp | 8.75 | 17.82 | 0.49 | 4.3 | 5.04 | 10.23% | 73.47% |
AUQ | AuRico Gold Inc. | 4.54 | 27.67 | 0.16 | 3.6 | 0.55 | 12.47% | 100.00% |
PAAS | Pan American Silver Corp. | 11.56 | 40.35 | 0.29 | 4.4 | 0.62 | 2.21% | 172.41% |
The precious metal stocks are arranged by the payout ratio, which in our opinion is the best measure of sustainability of the dividend. Dividend payout ratios of 50% and less are the most likely to be maintained. However, the trials that lay ahead in the precious metal sector may require more cuts in the dividend.
Two notes of caution are required. First, we’re not yield chasers and advise that gold stocks are not purchased based on dividend yield. Second, Barrick Gold (ABX) and Kinross Gold (KGC) are wild card speculations, with payout ratios in the minus column due to negative annual earnings. Investment in these companies are highly volatile plays that will pay off big. However, the challenge will be sitting through the gut wrenching declines that may be ahead.
Gold Stock Indicator
The Gold Stock Indicator (GSI) is on course to retest the June 26, 2013 low.
Our theory on the GSI at the current level suggests that a steady purchase of gold stocks at or below current prices.
Gold: 50% Principle
From a Dow Theory perspective, downside targets rely heavily on the concept of the 50% principle. Although mistakenly attributed to E. George Schaefer by Richard Russell, the 50% principle is derived from Charles H. Dow’s “great law of action and reaction.” Dow describes the “law” in the following manner:
“The market is always responsive to the great law of action and reaction. The longer the swing one way the longer it will be the other. One of the best general rules in speculation is the theory that reaction in an advance or a decline will be at least one-half of the primary movement [50% principle].
“The fact that the law is working through short ranges and long ones at the same time makes it impossible to tell with certainty what any particular swing may do; but for practical purposes, it is not infrequently wise to believe that when a stock has risen 10 points, and as a result of one or two short swings [double tops] does not go above the high point, but rather recedes from it, that it will gradually work off 4 or 5 points.[1]”
In another excerpt from Dow’s work, on the topic of the 50% principle, Dow says:
“It often happens that the secondary movement in a market amounts to 3/8 to ½ of the primary movement.[2]”
Again, Dow emphasis the concept of the 50% principle:
“Whoever will study our averages, as given in the Journal for years past, will see how uniformly periods of advance have been followed by periods of decline, amounting in a large proportion of cases to from one-third to one-half of the rise. [3]”
Finally, George Bishop, one of the greatest authors on the topic of Charles H. Dow, concludes:
“The law of action and reaction applies to both the general market and to individual stocks. This law states that the reaction to an advance or decline will approximate half the original movement.[4]”
Dow Theory 50% Principle for Gold
Dow Theory downside targets for the price of gold, based on the peak of $1,895 and the initial low of $252.80 based on the closing price, is charted below (July 20, 1999 and September 5, 2011, respectively):
Citations:
-
[1] Dow, Charles H. Wall Street Journal. October 19, 1900.
-
[1] Bishop, George. Charles H. Dow and the Dow Theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. 1960. page 119.
-
[1] Sether, Laura. Dow Theory Unplugged. W&A Publishing. 2009. page 112.
-
[2] Dow, Charles H. Wall Street Journal. January 22, 1901.
-
[2] Bishop, George. Charles H. Dow and the Dow Theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. 1960. page 120.
-
[2] Sether, Laura. Dow Theory Unplugged. W&A Publishing. 2009. page 117.
-
[3] Dow, Charles H. Wall Street Journal. January 30, 1901
-
[3] Bishop, George. Charles H. Dow and the Dow Theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. 1960. page 120.
-
[3] Sether, Laura. Dow Theory Unplugged. W&A Publishing. 2009. page 199.
-
[4] Bishop, George. Charles H. Dow and the Dow Theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. 1960. page 231.
Posted in 50% principle, Charles Dow, Charles H. Dow, gold, gold bugs
Emerging Markets and Gold
Drawing from the work of Bhartia and Seto in the article titled "Present and Emerging Risks to the Gold Trade" (found here) and "Emerging Consumers Drive Gold Prices: Who Knew?" (found here) it is claimed that the driver for the price of gold since 2000 has been the emerging economies.
From our perspective, we have struggled to jump on board the explanation that India and China, or emerging markets, are the primary contributing influence on the rise in the price of gold. In our experience, when the small players (in any market) are piling in on a particular trade, it is worth examining the elements that are making it possible.
What stands out the most in our review of Bhartia and Seto’s work is the following comment:
“The impact of the Asian financial crisis is instructive. As the economies in the region fell into recession, the purchasing power of consumers in Southeast Asia declined commensurately. Thailand, Indonesia, and Korea all became netsellers of gold, albeit briefly (see Exhibit 1). In line with the drop in demand and the drop in the regional stock markets, gold prices fell 25% (see Exhibit 2).”
This is an instance where it appears that correlation of a select period of time has fit the argument more than explained the reasons why the price of gold has increased. Unfortunately, this examination overlooks or omits the performance of the same regional stock markets from 1980 to 1993, a period that reflected massive gains in the respective emerging stock markets even as the price of gold crashed or was unchanged from the peak in 1980 to 1993, and ultimately to 2000. As an example:
-
The Thai Set Stock Index increased 16 times (16x) from 1980 to the 1993 peak (found here) & (confirmed here) In the same time frame (1980-1993), gold declined -61%.
-
In the case of the KOSPI or Korean stock index, it increased 11 times (11x) from 1980 to the 1993 peak (chart here). In the same time frame (1980-1993), gold declined -61%.
-
In the case of the Indonesian stock market, it increased 6 times (6x) from 1982 to 1992/1993 (chart here). In the same timeframe, gold was unchanged.
Our belief is that the overall rise in the stock market reflects a general increase in economic wealth of the country. Unfortunately, Bhartia and Seto cannot demonstrate that the emerging market consumer demand to push the price of gold higher in a period when the emerging economies grew from 1980 to 1993. Nor could they demonstrate that currency collapse and a crashing economy had enough impact to move the price of gold higher.
If Bhartia and Seto are correct that emerging markets are moving the price of gold higher today, then the ability and opportunity, due to significant economic growth, to buy gold should have increased enough to move the needle in a positive direction from 1980 to 1993. Unfortunately, when countries normally associated with a long tradition for appreciating the value of gold and/or high savings rate experienced substantial economic wealth, the price of gold did not increase. In fact, from 1980 to 1993, the price of gold declined substantially. Also, as the respective currencies were on the brink of collapse in 1996 and 1997, gold managed to decline -37%.
The economic law of demand suggests that as prices go higher, demand will decline. That has not been the case in emerging economies when it comes to gold, as demonstrated by Bhartia and Seto. Worse still, when emerging markets are piling into a trade (any trade), it may mean that the easy money has been made, in the short term.
Rather than considering emerging markets as leaders of a movement towards better investment decisions, we should be reassessing the role of that investment and its ability to generate reasonable risk-reward outcomes.