Authored by Trey Reik, Senior Portfolio Manager, Sprott Asset Management USA, Inc.
The investment climate of 2017 has been characterized by thematic cross currents. Communication from global central bankers has at times appeared more hawkish, yet global rates of QE have only accelerated. Optimism for the Trump agenda initially levitated sentiment measures, but hard economic statistics failed to follow. Despite the almost continuous upheaval in global geopolitics, volatility measures and credit spreads have remained unfazed near historic lows. Since economic fundamentals can never compete with the intoxication of fresh weekly highs for the S&P 500, investor consensus now routinely ignores troubling imbalances in the global financial system. Indeed, investors and asset allocators with the temerity to have employed risk-mitigation and hedging strategies have only succeeded in impairing portfolio performance and career prospects. In an investment world now dominated by monthly inflows into ETF’s and index funds, unconstrained by rational analysis of portfolio components, it has become somewhat passé to fret over underlying fundamentals.
Amid such fervor for U.S. financial assets, gold’s solid year-to-date gains have been somewhat counter-intuitive. After trading in a tight $100-range for seven months, spot gold broke upwards through resistance at $1,300 in late-August and touched an intra-day high of $1,357.64 on 9/8/17 (up 17.8% year-to-date). Most investors are unaware that gold’s performance during this span exceeded the total return of the S&P 500 (+11.51%) by some 55%! Conventional wisdom attributes gold’s recent strength to North Korean provocation and Mother Nature’s wrath, but this narrative ignores the fact that gold broke through $1,300 (on its third attempt in five months) before Chairman Kim’s 8/28 Hokkaido missile launch. We believe gold’s unheralded price-performance in 2017 carries an important signal for investors. Much to the Fed’s chagrin, economic and financial imbalances are bubbling to the surface (once again), placing consensus expectations for further FOMC tightening in jeopardy.
As precious-metal investors, we frequently encounter the refrain that global economic conditions, while somewhat lackluster, are a far cry from the negative extremes of the financial crisis. The funny thing about this nearly ubiquitous view is how precisely misinformed it is — virtually every measure of domestic and global debt is significantly worse today than at its financial-crisis peak. In this note, we seek to disabuse the popular notion of economic and balance sheet repair, through dispassionate review of relevant statistics. We recognize rehashing structural debt issues is a tiresome exercise for equity bulls, but we believe gold’s recent breakout may be foreshadowing an imminent uptick in financial stress. If we are correct in our analysis, reigning positioning in prominent asset classes is likely to be recalibrated to gold’s tangible benefit.
Perhaps the greatest misconception among contemporary investors is the belief that the U.S. economy has been deleveraging since the financial crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Fed’s quarterly Z.1 report discloses that domestic nonfinancial credit (including households, business, federal, state and local) has increased more than 40% since Q1 2009, rising from $33.9 trillion to $47.5 trillion by Q1 2017. Of course, this aggregate measure does not capture growth in the Fed’s own balance sheet, which has expanded from $930 billion in August 2008 to its current level around $4.5 trillion. Because we have always viewed the Fed’s QE programs as tacit admission that the Fed feels compelled to provide a liquidity bridge whenever U.S. nonfinancial credit growth is insufficient to stabilize the U.S. debt pyramid (now $66.5 trillion including financial debt), we find it highly implausible that the Fed can now reduce the size of its balance sheet meaningfully without straining liquidity conditions in the U.S. commercial banking system.
Our gold investment thesis rests on the gross over-issuance of paper claims (debt) against comparatively modest levels of productive output (GDP). Total U.S. credit market debt of $66.5 trillion cannot be functionally serviced by a $19 trillion economy without the annual creation of copious amounts of fresh nonfinancial credit to help amortize existing debt obligations. Gold serves as a productive portfolio asset amid such “forced” credit growth for two important reasons. First, the only options for rebalancing unsustainable debt-levels back towards underlying productive output are default or debasement, and gold is an asset immune to both. Second, gold is an effective protector of portfolio purchasing power during inevitable episodes of official policy response.
In Figure 1, below, we plot a simplistic illustration of how burdensome U.S. debt levels have become. During the past four quarters, net economy-wide interest payments approximated $641 billion, or over 90% of coincident GDP growth of $708 billion. This certainly does not leave much economic fuel to power capital formation!
Figure 1: U.S. Annual Aggregate Net Interest Payments (1985-2017)
Source: MacroMavens; BEA; U.S. Treasury
Drilling down in the consumer segment of total U.S. debt, historically high debt levels are frequently discounted by the observation that debt-service ratios remain manageable in the context of today’s near-ZIRP environment. We view debt-service ratios as a classic tool of cognitive dissonance. While these ratios calibrate aggregate disposable income to aggregate debt service, they ignore the reality that the disposable income and the debt obligations are largely concentrated in different sub-sectors of the U.S. population, so netting them out is a pyrrhic exercise. Further, in the current environment of soaring healthcare and housing costs, traditional disposable income statistics have become far less instructive in gauging consumer financial-health than discretionary income measures (after basic needs are paid for). Reflecting growing consumer stress, delinquencies are beginning to spike (from low levels) on a wide range of revolving and installment credits, from JP Morgan’s credit card portfolio to subprime auto loans, to everything in between. Rapidly declining fundamentals in important industries such as retail, automobiles and restaurants only serve to reinforce the message of tapped and retrenching consumers.
Corporate balance sheets have been deteriorating for many years. ZIRP fostered an epic decline in capex in favor of borrowing to finance share repurchase. In essence, corporate income statements have been consuming corporate balance sheets at an alarming clip. State and local governments are struggling with a $4 trillion funding shortfall in public pensions, due largely to the corrosive effects of seven years of ZIRP on the complexities of pension accounting.
The recently negotiated three-month suspension of the federal debt ceiling paved the way for a single-day, $318 billion boost in our national debt, to $20.162 trillion on 9/8/17. Since the U.S. has not run a budget surplus in over two decades, it is no surprise that first breach of the $20-trillion-level generated scant coverage in the financial press. Quickly recognizing he now faced the awkward timing of a year-end debt-ceiling standoff, President Trump once again demonstrated his trademark flexibility with respect to longstanding convention by floating the concept of abandoning the ceiling altogether (9/7/17):
For many years, people have been talking about getting rid of debt ceiling altogether, and there are a lot of good reasons to do that. It complicates things, and it’s not necessary.
Rounding out the surreal quality of contemporary U.S. governance, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin on 9/13/17 issued veiled threats towards China which we found disturbing. Addressing an Andrew Sorkin question as to why the U.S. has been unable to “move the needle” in convincing China to pressure North Korea to change its behavior, Secretary Mnuchin responded:
I think we have absolutely moved the needle on China. I think what they agreed to yesterday was historic. I’d also say I put sanctions on a major Chinese bank. That’s the first time that’s ever been done. And if China doesn’t follow these sanctions, we will put additional sanctions on them and prevent them from accessing the U.S. and international dollar system. And that’s quite meaningful. [our emphasis]
As John McEnroe might protest, “You can’t be serious!” The United States is the world’s largest debtor nation, running the world’s largest trade deficit, requiring more external capital than any other global nation. Yet Treasury Secretary Mnuchin saw fit to threaten to deny China, both our largest creditor and our largest trading partner, access to the SWIFT interbank clearing network, which underpins the dollar-standard system and, therefore, the vast majority of global commerce. Beyond almost inconceivable disrespect to China, Mnuchin’s comments demonstrate either ignorance of, or reckless disregard for, the critical role played by savings (domestic or foreign) in the capital formation process. In the United States, we don’t even pretend that savings matter anymore. It’s all about the printing press!
Amid cavalier U.S. attitudes regarding the dollar-standard system, the global trend towards de-dollarization continues apace. In response to U.S. sanctions, Venezuela announced 9/14/17 that it will no longer accept U.S. dollars as payment for its crude oil exports. Even more intriguing was disclosure in the Nikkei Asian Review on 9/3/17 that China is launching a crude oil futures-contract denominated in yuan and fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong exchanges (already beta-tested this past June and July). Longheld global resentments over the petrodollar payment-system are finally coalescing into tangible policies and products to reduce dollar hegemony. These currency-diversification efforts only compound the dollar’s 2017 woes. As shown in Figure 2, below, 2017 year-to-date performance of the Fed’s Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar Index has been the worst since inception of the index in 1995.
Figure 2: Annual Performances of Fed’s Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar Index by Trading Days (1995-2017)
Source: Bespoke Investment Group; Zero Hedge
Pulling this all together, we attribute recent dollar weakness to growing speculation that the Fed is finished with its current tightening cycle. As we have communicated in the past, we believe outstanding U.S. debt levels absolutely preclude normalization of interest rate structures (on both the short and the long end). While it is still too early to cite definitive proof, we suspect the Fed’s three most recent rate hikes have already begun to weigh on U.S. economic performance in manners the Fed will not countenance (such as declining growth rates in commercial-bank lending). On 9/5/17, Minneapolis Fed President (and 2017 FOMC voter) Neel Kashkari freely acknowledged his own apprehensions over recent Fed tightening:
Maybe our rate hikes are doing real harm to the economy. It’s very possible that our rate hikes over the past 18 months are leading to slower job growth, leaving more people on the side-lines, leading to lower wage growth, and leading to lower inflation and inflation expectations.
Despite the Fed’s recent rate increases and occasional outbreaks of hawkish jawboning from global central bankers during 2017, the U.S. dollar’s extended decline, together with gold’s recent breakout, signal growing market skepticism that the era of central bank stimulus is truly coming to a close.
Figure 3: Spot Gold vs. Aggregate Market Value of Global Negative-Yielding Sovereign Bonds (February 2017 - September 2017)
Source: Meridian Macro
Nowhere is this inflection in market expectations for central bank policy more evident than in the dramatic summer resurgence of sovereign bonds sporting negative yields. Figure 3, above, demonstrates that the global stock of negative-yielding sovereigns exploded by 50% during the past three months, and now stands just $2.1 trillion shy of its June 2016 record-total. Tight correlations in Figure 3 suggest gold has certainly taken notice.
The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation by anyone in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation.
This report contains forward-looking statements which reflect the current expectations of management regarding future growth, results of operations, performance and business prospects and opportunities. Wherever possible, words such as “may”, “would”, “could”, “will”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “plan”, “expect”, “intend”, “estimate”, and similar expressions have been used to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements reflect management’s current beliefs with respect to future events and are based on information currently available to management. Forward-looking statements involve significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Many factors could cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements that may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements prove incorrect, actual results, performance or achievements could vary materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in this document. These factors should be considered carefully and undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this document are based upon what management currently believes to be reasonable assumptions, there is no assurance that actual results, performance or achievements will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this presentation and Sprott does not assume any obligation to update or revise.
Views expressed regarding a particular company, security, industry or market sector should not be considered an indication of trading intent of any fund or account managed by Sprott. Any reference to a particular company is for illustrative purposes only and should not to be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell nor should it be considered as an indication of how the portfolio of any fund or account managed by Sprott will be invested.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author’s as of the date of this commentary, and are subject to change without notice. This information is for information purposes only and is not intended to be an offer or solicitation for the sale of any financial product or service or a recommendation or determination by Sprott Global Resource Investments Ltd. that any investment strategy is suitable for a specific investor. Investors should seek financial advice regarding the suitability of any investment strategy based on the objectives of the investor, financial situation, investment horizon, and their particular needs. This information is not intended to provide financial, tax, legal, accounting or other professional advice since such advice always requires consideration of individual circumstances. The products discussed herein are not insured by the FDIC or any other governmental agency, are subject to risks, including a possible loss of the principal amount invested.
Generally, natural resources investments are more volatile on a daily basis and have higher headline risk than other sectors as they tend to be more sensitive to economic data, political and regulatory events as well as underlying commodity prices. Natural resource investments are influenced by the price of underlying commodities like oil, gas, metals, coal, etc.; several of which trade on various exchanges and have price fluctuations based on short-term dynamics partly driven by demand/supply and also by investment flows. Natural resource investments tend to react more sensitively to global events and economic data than other sectors, whether it is a natural disaster like an earthquake, political upheaval in the Middle East or release of employment data in the U.S. Low priced securities can be very risky and may result in the loss of part or all of your investment. Because of significant volatility, large dealer spreads and very limited market liquidity, typically you will not be able to sell a low priced security immediately back to the dealer at the same price it sold the stock to you. In some cases, the stock may fall quickly in value. Investing in foreign markets may entail greater risks than those normally associated with domestic markets, such as political, currency, economic and market risks. You should carefully consider whether trading in low priced and international securities is suitable for you in light of your circumstances and financial resources. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Sprott Global, entities that it controls, family,
You are now leaving sprottus.com and entering a linked website.Continue
You are now leaving Sprott.com and entering a linked website. Sprott has partnered with ALPS in offering Sprott ETFs. For fact sheets, marketing materials, prospectuses, performance, expense information and other details about the ETFs, you will be directed to the ALPS/Sprott website at SprottETFs.com.Continue to Sprott Exchange Traded Funds
You are now leaving Sprott.com and entering a linked website. Sprott Asset Management is a sub-advisor for several mutual funds on behalf of Ninepoint Partners. For details on these funds, you will be directed to the Ninepoint Partners website at ninepoint.com.Continue to Ninepoint Partners