Sunday , 20 August 2017


Does the Collapse In Gold Prices Represent a Vote of Confidence In the Global Economy?

From the onset of the global financial crisis, the price of gold has often been PD-Gold-Nuggets8-300x199portrayed as a barometer of global economic insecurity (in principle, holding gold is a form of insurance against war, financial Armageddon, and wholesale currency debasement) so does the collapse in gold prices – from a peak of $1,900 per ounce in August 2011 to under $1,250 at the beginning of July 2013 – represent a vote of confidence in the global economy?

So asks Kenneth Rogoff in edited excerpts from his original article* as posted on usgold.com under the title Golden Slumbers.

[The following article is presented by  Lorimer Wilson, editor of www.FinancialArticleSummariesToday.com and www.munKNEE.com and the FREE Market Intelligence Report newsletter (sample here – register here) and may have been edited ([ ]), abridged (…) and/or reformatted (some sub-titles and bold/italics emphases) for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. This paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.]

Rogoff goes on to say in further edited (and in some instances paraphrased) excerpts:

To say that the gold market displays all of the classic features of a bubble gone bust is to oversimplify. There is no doubt that gold’s heady rise to the peak, from around $350 per ounce in July 2003, had investors drooling…The case for buying gold had several strong components. Ten years ago, gold was selling at well below its long-term inflation-adjusted average, and the integration of three billion emerging-market citizens into the global economy could only mean a giant long-term boost to demand. That element of the story, incidentally, remains valid.

The global financial crisis added to gold’s allure, owing initially to fear of a second Great Depression. Later, some investors feared that governments would unleash inflation to ease the burden of soaring public debt and address persistent unemployment.

As central banks brought policy interest rates down to zero, no one cared that gold yields no interest. So it is nonsense to say that the rise in the price of gold was all a bubble but it is also true that as the price rose, a growing number of naïve investors sought to buy in.

Lately, of course, the fundamentals have reversed somewhat, and the speculative frenzy has reversed even more. China’s economy continues to soften; India’s growth rate is down sharply from a few years ago. By contrast, despite the ill-advised fiscal sequester, the US economy appears to be healing gradually. Global interest rates have risen 100 basis points since the US Federal Reserve started suggesting – quite prematurely, in my view – that it would wind down its policy of quantitative easing.

With the Fed underscoring its strong anti-inflation bias, it is harder to argue that investors need gold as a hedge against high inflation and, as…[those] who were buying gold coins two years ago now unload them, it is not yet clear where the downward price spiral will stop. Some are targeting the psychologically compelling $1,000 barrier…

In fact, the case for or against gold has not changed all that much since 2010…The real case for holding it, then as now, was never a speculative one. Rather, gold is a hedge. If you are a high-net-worth investor, or a sovereign wealth fund, it makes perfect sense to hold a small percentage of your assets in gold as a hedge against extreme events.

Holding gold can also make sense for middle-class and poor households in countries – for example, China and India – that significantly limit access to other financial investments. For most others, gold is just another gamble that one can make and, as with all gambles, it is not necessarily a winning one.

Unless governments firmly set the price of gold, as they did before World War I, the market for it will inevitably be risky and volatile…The price of gold often seems to drift far above or far below its fundamental long-term value for extended periods. (This behavior is, of course, not unlike that of many other financial assets, such as exchange rates or stock prices, though gold’s price swings may be more extreme.)…

Conclusion

The recent collapse of gold prices has not really changed the case for investing in it one way or the other. Yes, prices could easily fall below $1,000; but, then again, they might rise. Meanwhile, policymakers should be cautious in interpreting the plunge in gold prices as a vote of confidence in their performance.

[Editor’s Note: The author’s views and conclusions in the above article are unaltered and no personal comments have been included to maintain the integrity of the original post. Furthermore, the views, conclusions and any recommendations offered in this article are not to be construed as an endorsement of such by the editor.]

*http://www.usagold.com/publications/goldenslumbers.html (Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist of the IMF, is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University;    Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013; www.project-syndicate.org; Reprinted with permission;  If you would like to broaden your view of the gold market, we invite you to sign-up for our regular newsletter and receive quality commentary like what you are now reading. It’s free of charge and comes by e-mail. You can opt out at any time.)

2 comments

  1. The Global “Economy” is now but a biased shadow of what it was a decade ago as the Central Banks continue to print money overtime and enable their countries Ultra Wealthy to sell Gold using naked shorts, which has the effect of scaring small to medium investors into selling their PM’s because of fear and/or need.

    As the numbers of those with money to spend continually decline, thanks to current monetary practices, the “Global Economy” will continue to collapse, which at some point in the near future cause the current fiscal version of the fiscal-musical chairs game to end with those only holding flat money left out of PM’s recovery!

    I view PM’s, like I do insurance, you purchase it because if something unexpected happens, you don’t want to pay the entire bill for it yourself. Yes, until that something happens you are paying for your insurance (think not making any money from the money invested in PM’s), but that amount is small compared to what you might lose should disaster strike (dramatic loss in value of flat money) which would then require you to accept a huge reduction in the value of your portfolio.

  2. How can you keep saying the economy is improving? There is no way out of our worldwide
    unpayable debt situation other than declaring bankruptcy. It would take an austerity program
    so severve that those who have learned to live on gov handouts would rebel.