A balanced viewpoint on gold

In terms of gold, and silver, analysis from those ‘expert pundits’ who tend to monopolise the information highway with their self-promotional opinions, usually with an agenda to promote their own subscription websites and newsletters, or their latest books, it seems to be a case of ‘bulls are bulls and bears are bears and never the twain shall find any common ground’. They have made their positions clear over and over and while both sides may ultimately prove to be correct in their views at some point over very long periods of time, they do not tend to be good guides for the investor in the short to medium term timeframes in which most of us make investment decisions.  They may call trends correctly from time to time, but their end-predictions tend to be way off.

There are exceptions of course.  Bank analysts tend to take a more balanced viewpoint, but they seem to follow a herd instinct and are almost all totally reactive.  Gold follows an upwards path for a month or two and the analysts raise their forecasts, and vice versa.  They are not opinion leaders but followers.

I like to think of myself as having a reasonably balanced view on precious metals, although I do admit to being marginally bullish at the present time – perhaps being more swayed by bullish arguments than by bearish ones, but I would like to think I would be prepared to change my position should the fundamentals which I follow start to look like moving in a different direction.  But then my background is in mining engineering, which I believe to be a pragmatic discipline, rather than in economics where, sometimes strongly held opinions seem to have little connection with day to day life reality.

So, I tend to discount arguments that tell me that gold is going to $5,000 or $10,000 in the medium term – to be frank I’m not sure I’d want to be living in a world where this were to occur, the scenario is probably too horrific and only likely to be brought about by total economic collapse.  The world’s politicians and central bankers, however misguided they may be in their actions, do seem to just about muddle through in the end!  I wouldn’t, however, rule out a rise to $2,000 within a couple of years, although even this might be stretching it.

Conversely I do not find any sympathy for a the mega-bearish analysis that suggests gold could come crashing down well below the $1,000 level, perhaps to $750 or lower – gold at plus $1,000 levels is now probably too entrenched in the system.  Some may view it as a pet rock, but gold as an instrument of wealth is inbuilt into the psyche of the vast majority of the world’s population.  As such it has withstood the tests of time.

Thus it is always comforting when one comes across analysis which does appear to be reasonably balanced and the latest Bloomberg Intelligence Mid-Year Outlook for Precious Metals is such.  It comprises a series of short snippets from Bloomberg analysts on precious metals – some of which I would agree with and some not – but overall a more balanced series of viewpoints than are generally released onto the markets.  The report was presided over by Ken Hofmann, Bloomberg Intelligence’s Senior Industry Analyst whose opinions I much respect.  It doesn’t try and predict prices going forward but raises a succession of points which are hugely relevant to current investors and to future trends in gold demand and sentiment.

It opens with the statement: “The U.K.’s surprise vote in favor of leaving the EU has sent investors clamoring for currencies other than pounds and euros, favoring gold and other precious metals. With elections in the U.S. and major European nations scheduled through 2017, precious metals such as gold and silver also are viewed as less susceptible to political changes. The launch of blockchain, using technology currencies backed by physical gold, has also supported demand for the metal.” 

None of this I would quarrel with, although, as noted above there are aspects in the informational snippets which to me suggest a degree of unfortunate under-research in particular relating to current Chinese gold consumption, but perhaps that’s just because the analyst responsible did not have the space to present a more closely researched picture of the reality.

The introduction also highlights the following aspects of the report:

  • China Seeks Larger Role in World Gold Market: Primer
  • Blockchain May Be Future of Trading, Currencies: Midyear Outlook
  • Gold Holdings Show Rising Role in Global System: Midyear Outlook

The notes on the Chinese impact are, for the most part, quite illuminating having mainly been drawn together by Chinese speaking analysts who perhaps have greater insights into the Chinese mindset and policies than those of us Westerners who try, and often fail, to understand some of the motivations and nuances behind Chinese gold demand and market participation rationale.  A considerable section of the overall analysis is devoted to China and its importance in the Precious Metals sector and what the analysts perceive as the key points in the country’s overall precious metals strategy which is particularly significant given that the nation is both the world’s largest producer of gold, and the largest consumer.

It is, though, the snippet on Chinese consumption with which I would perhaps argue the most.  Analyst Sean Gilmartin comments: “Estimates by groups such as the World Gold Council and Metals Focus put Chinese gold demand at 834 metric tons in 2015, based on imports from Hong Kong and local mining. The Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE), the official exchange of Chinese gold, had over 2,500 tons of withdrawals in 2015. Those who say China has been importing more gold than the West estimates point to this figure as support for higher Chinese demand. Traditional sources maintain it is just the same gold, moving in and out of the SGE.”  This is something of a simplification of the position and does not note that the WGC and Metals Focus estimates (which are effectively the same number as the latter supplies the data to the former) of Chinese demand relate only to a section of gold flows into China plus Chinese production. This has been very much the pattern mainstream analysts have followed for some years.  But in the past two or three years there has been a substantial flow into banks and financial institutions which is not included in this ‘demand’ figure. which has teneded to follow precedent and only look at consumer and retail investment flows.

Flows from Hong Kong, which still seem to being taken as a proxy for total Chinese imports are no longer so dominant with much more gold being imported directly than used to be the case and published detailed gold export figures from several countries bear out that perhaps only 60%, or even less, of mainland China imports nowadays flow through Hong Kong.  The true figure for Chinese gold imports plus domestic production is far close to the SGE withdrawal figures than the note might have us believe.

However other aspects of the report trying to get behind the Chinese rationale for building its gold reserves, the role of the huge increase in the Shanghai Gold Exchange’s impact, the increasing participation of Chinese banks in global gold price setting and trade and the implementation of the Chinese daily gold ‘fixes’ in yuan, make for valuable reading.  But again all could do with much further analysis.

A significant sector of the overall report is also devoted to gold and the blockchain and its potential impact moving ahead.  It notes that “Blockchain is also being used to transform gold, one of the world’s oldest forms of money, into one of the newest. Gold apps, such as the gold-backed BitGold, are being used as global payment systems, similar to PayPal, only backed by metal, not cash.”

Time will tell how much impact the above will have on the global usage of gold.  The somewhat chequered history of bitcoin – the progenitor of the blockchain – suggests perhaps that one should reserve judgement.

The report gives some limited insights into other aspects of gold, gold stocks, central bank gold buying and even more on the Chinese effect round it off.  Valuable reading if one can get hold of a copy, although is definitely in need of further amplification which no doubt is available, at a cost, direct from the Bloomberg service.

The above is an edited version of an original article published on sharpspixley.com – which will be updated with some of the edited changes in this article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s