-- Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 | | Source: GoldSeek.com
Today’s essay is the first one in our two-part commentary on U.S. debt and the dollar collapse.
On
numerous occasions we have gone back in our commentaries to the year
1971 and U.S. President Richard Nixon’s decision to cut off the ties
between the greenback and gold. Today, we revisit the topic once more
and check what kind of implications it has for the price of the yellow
metal.
Prior
to 1971 the most prominent world currencies had been regulated by the
Bretton Woods system. Under this agreement, the U.S. agreed to link the
dollar to gold. This meant that any amount of dollars handed over by a
foreign government or central bank would be exchanged for gold at $35
per ounce. Such an arrangement had a particularly important consequence
for money creation. Namely, the U.S. government shouldn’t issue more
paper money than it had physical gold to back this money up. In
practice, it was rather improbable that all the dollars would have to be
exchanged for gold at once, so the U.S. government in fact issued more
money than it could have paid for with gold, but the main restriction
was in place: debt numbers couldn’t be inflated to unsustainable levels.
In
1944 when the Bretton Woods system was introduced, the relation of U.S.
debt to the official Treasury gold reserves stood at $319.90 per ounce
of gold. This meant that there was $319.90 of borrowed money for every
ounce of gold the U.S. had. With the price of gold at $35, a quick
calculation shows that the U.S. gold reserves could have paid for about
10.9% of its debt. At first, it might seem that there was a lot of debt
compared to gold assets. On the other hand, however, such a ratio was
similar to reserves required from commercial banks by the regulator. In a
way, the U.S. operated like a bank (with a lot of differences, of
course).
By
1970, partly due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. began running consistent
deficits. The government printed more dollars to meet its obligations
and the amount of debt per ounce of gold surged to $1,172.56. The
coverage of debt in gold went down to 3.1%. The ability of the U.S. to
keep up to the promise to exchange dollars for gold was put into
question. Nixon, fearing a situation in which foreign central banks
would make a collective bank run on Fort Knox, decided to cease to
exchange the dollar for gold and directly break the Bretton Woods
agreement.
From that moment on, the dollar has been a fiat currency,
that is a currency not backed by a physical asset, just by a promise of
the government to accept payments (taxes) in it. But, as we’ve just
seen, promises can be broken and right now the ability of the U.S. to
pay its debts off in the future is also being put into question. To see
why, take a look at the chart below.
Since
1970 U.S. debt has gone up from $370.9 bln to $16,159.5 bln, which is a
more than 41-fold increase (!). Since 2000 gold has appreciated along
with the ever sharper increase in debt. A similar chart was discussed in
our commentary on gold as insurance.
Our next chart shows the rates of change (ROC) of both the U.S. debt and the average annual price of gold between 1920 and 2012.
The
annual ROC of U.S. debt was in a general downtrend in the 1983-2000
period which was accompanied by poor performance of gold. Since 2000,
the ROC of U.S. debt has been increasing again, which means that debt
has been growing increasingly rapidly. This coincided with gold’s
extraordinary performance during the last 10 years.
The U.S. Federal Reserve, led by Ben Bernanke, initiated three substantial rounds of what it calls quantitative easing (QE).
In short, QE is a process in which the Fed buys government bonds and
other assets from secondary markets with newly created dollars. Its
(official) purpose is not to finance government deficits but rather to
bring the U.S. economy back on the growth trajectory. Nonetheless, the
effects of QE can be compared to those of printing enormous amounts of
money. Just to give you an idea of how much debt the consecutive rounds
of QE have so far created (approximate amounts):
- QE1 (Nov 2008 – Mar 2010): $1.65 trillion
- QE2 (Nov 2010 – Jun 2011): $600 billion
- QE3 (Sep 2012 – ?): $40 billion per month.
As
a matter of fact, Fed’s quest to provide the economy with more
incentives has not stopped. The direct effect of QE on debt is reflected
on the chart below.
In
the period between January 2012 and November 2012 U.S. debt grew by
7.2%. There’s more to it: QE3 is an open-ended operation. This means
that there is no limit on the amount of money the Fed can create and
inflate the debt with within QE3. The purchases in the amount of $40
billion per month will continue as long as the Fed deems necessary.
The
points mentioned above add up to a picture which is not at all rosy for
the U.S. But it’s not apocalyptic either. Particularly for precious
metals investors. Let us explain why.
It
belongs to common sense that you can’t borrow money forever. Economics
has a lot of intricacies and can be quite complicated at times but the
basic rules are very simple. You borrow, you have to pay back. So if the
government borrows too much and can’t pay it back, it will have to go
bankrupt. The more debt it has, the worse its reputation is. People are
less willing to put their money into treasury bills of a government with
excessive debt. If the economy is shaky and the government is printing
money, it damages its reputation but also makes the currency worth less
and less. Hyperinflation is not a default nor bankruptcy in technical
terms, but it is in practical terms. For the USD bond holders it will
make little difference if they are not paid or paid something that is
worthless.
In such an environment investors, motivated psychologically, turn to gold and silver. As Warren Buffet correctly pointed out:
“[Gold]
gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it
down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around
guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be
scratching their head.”
But
there’s one side of precious metals that is not covered by that quote.
Gold and silver may be just lumps of metal but what makes them extremely
interesting is the psychological association people have with them. Gold and silver have been used as currencies throughout the centuries.
And people, for whatever reason, perceive them as valuable,
particularly in times of economic turbulence. This alone stipulates that
gold and silver prices may rise along with the worsening of the
economic situation. And in case of the unlikely collapse of paper
currencies, gold and silver could quite naturally come in as the base of
a new monetary system.
The
possibility we would like to highlight now is the default of the U.S.
on its obligations and the demise of the dollar. In this scenario, a new
currency system based on the gold standard is introduced. The financial
collapse is usually perceived as Armageddon but doesn’t necessarily
have to be one. Just imagine, even in case of the U.S. government
defaulting on its obligations, the assets that the country has would
remain in place. The buildings, cars and infrastructure would still be
there, they wouldn’t melt down in the possible financial crisis.
A
lot of property would change hands and there definitely would be
turmoil, but it wouldn’t need to amount to a civil war. Take a look at
Latvia, a country where the GDP between 2007 and 2009 shrank by 24%,
where unemployment shot up to 30% in 2010. Where the government laid off
30% of the civil servants and cut payrolls by 40%. Latvia didn’t
disintegrate.
So
what implications for gold would a collapse of the U.S. dollar have?
The next chart will aid us to analyze such an occurrence.
This
chart presents the already mentioned relation of U.S. debt to Treasury
gold reserves – the amount of debt per one ounce of gold – up to 2012.
The red line represents U.S. Treasury gold reserves in metric tonnes,
while the yellow line denotes the amount of U.S. debt in dollars per
ounce of gold. The debt per ounce has visibly increased since 1971,
accelerating around 2000 and even more around 2008. In 2012, there were
$61,796.11 of debt per one ounce of gold owned by the U.S. government.
Now,
if a new gold standard is introduced and the agreement works like the
Bretton Woods system, the dollar (or whatever other currency) would be
tied to gold. As noted earlier in this essay, at the introduction of the
Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 the debt coverage for the U.S. stood at
10.9% (or $319.90 of debt per one troy ounce of gold). If the new
system were based on similar assumptions with debt coverage at 10%, this
would imply a fixed price of $6,179.61 per ounce of gold ($6,179.61 per ounce of gold divided by $61,796.11 of debt per one ounce of gold gives us coverage of 10%).
But
is the dollar collapse all that likely? Or let us restate the question:
if the dollar doesn’t collapse, does it still make sense to be invested
in gold and silver? Bear with us until next week when we publish the
second part of this commentary. Until then you can gain some more
insight into why holding on to precious metals might keep you on the
safe side by reading our essays on gold and silver as insurance and on
gold and silver portfolio structure.
No comments:
Post a Comment