Hera : FOMC

John Embry on Gold, Silver, Currencies and Commodities

Ron Hera — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 20:14:00 GMT

The Hera Research Newsletter is pleased to present the following insightful interview with John Embry, Chief Investment Strategist of Sprott Asset Management LP, where he plays an instrumental role in the corporate and investment policy of the firm. Mr. Embry, who is a world renowned expert on the gold market and on gold and precious metals mining shares, currently focuses on the Sprott Gold and Precious Minerals Fund. Mr. Embry has researched the gold sector since 1963 and has more than thirty years of industry experience as a portfolio management specialist.

After graduating from the University of Manitoba with a Bachelor of Commerce degree, Mr. Embry began his investment career as a stock selection analyst and Portfolio Manager at Great West Life, where he later became Vice President of Pension Investments for the entire firm. After 23 years with the company, he became a Partner in United Bond and Share, an investment counseling firm acquired by Royal Bank in 1987.

At Royal Bank, Mr. Embry was named Vice-President, Equities and Portfolio Manager at RBC Global Investment Management, a $33 billion organization where he oversaw $5 billion in assets, including the flagship $2.9 billion Royal Canadian Equity Fund and the $250 million Royal Precious Metals Fund, which was the #1 ranked fund in Canada for its 2002 net performance of 153%.

Hera Research Newsletter (HRN): Thank you for joining us today. Let's talk about gold stocks.

John Embry: Gold stocks represent a tremendous value in relation to the price of gold and to the fundamentals of the sector. There has been tremendous shorting activity by hedge funds and, as a result, dedicated gold funds have experienced redemptions. Retail investors, who are natural buyers of these stocks, have been annihilated by the price action. This has created one of the finest opportunities, if not the finest opportunity, that I have ever seen.

HRN: Do you have a short term price target?

John Embry: I don't look at short term price charts for gold. In a market as heavily interfered with as this one, charts can be made to look any way you want in the short run. As I see it, if you don't like gold at these prices, then you must like currencies. My partner Eric Sprott often says, the U.S. dollar is the best looking horse in the glue factory. If the U.S. dollar is the world's strongest currency, that's the best endorsement for gold that I can think of.

HRN: Do you believe that currencies are losing value?

John Embry: The fact is that economies are slowly melting down. The problem is excessive debt in almost every corner of the world. The only way to deal with the debt is through aggressive growth, but fabricating growth through more debt won't work. The idea that you can get the economy to move forward by creating even more debt just doesn't wash. We can't service the existing debt, even at artificially low interest rates. I don't see any easy way out. We have to get the excessive debt out of the financial system. Either policy makers are going to create mounting inflation or there will be a deflationary debt collapse.

HRN: Europe seems to be a case in point. Do you think the Euro will break up?

John Embry: The Eurocrats who constructed the currency aren't going to give it up easily. The key is how much the Germans are going to go along with. They realize that there's a huge loss for them if the Euro falls apart. I wouldn't want to be in German Chancellor Angela Merkel's shoes. Germany is trapped in the Euro because it relies on exports and German banks hold the debt of other European countries. Despite the bailouts and the inflationary policies of the European Central Bank (ECB), Germany doesn't have much choice.

HRN: How can European governments solve their debt problems?

John Embry: The problem is that it would take a horrific debt collapse to set the stage for future expansion. There is no politician on earth that wants that to happen on their watch. Consequently, policy makers will resist deflation and we're going down the opposite road, which means mounting inflation or possibly hyperinflation. I don't think politicians will change the system. I think the system will change the politicians.

HRN: Can the economy recover in a high inflation scenario?

John Embry: Creating even more debt is not going to work. To me, high inflation is the most corrosive thing that can happen to an economy or to a country. I'm really worried that neoclassical, Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman, who are prescribing even more debt, will bring about a collapse.

HRN: Are these problems the result of Keynesian economics?

John Embry: If you really applied Keynesianism as Keynes originally envisioned it, the government was supposed to run surpluses when the economy was growing to pay for the deficits that would be created during downturns. That's been conveniently forgotten. We've had an astounding build up of debt. I don't think people fully realize how serious this is. I'm amazed at how complacent people are. We've never been in a position like this in the entire history of the world.

HRN: Why do you think people are so complacent?

John Embry: I think it's cognitive dissonance. When confronted with something that's really unpleasant, and to which there's no easy solution, the average person will basically block it out and look for somebody to tell them that everything is fine. The mainstream news media and the government are doing that as we speak. Consequently, the average person doesn't have a chance of understanding what's going on. The man in the street doesn't have a clue what's coming.

HRN: What about investment professionals?

John Embry: I have a lot of close friends who have been in the investment business for 40 years and they don't want to hear it.

HRN: Won't the Federal Reserve and other central banks simply bail out the system?

John Embry: They think that printing money will buoy the markets and that that's good, but it won't solve any of the problems. Although you may get a momentary lift in the financial markets, when it plays itself out we'll be back in the same situation, but with money that's being systematically destroyed.

HRN: Does printing money work in the short term?

John Embry: There are nominal prices and real prices. Printing money is very deceptive and people are confused by its effects. I am only interested in real returns, not nominal returns. If you have a nominal return that's caused by inflation, you're losing money because governments tax nominal gains.

HRN: Can governments inflate their way out of debt?

John Embry: The U.S. federal government, for example, has reached a stage where forty cents of every dollar spent at the federal level is borrowed and a lot of that money has been printed. There has never been a case in history where that hasn't led to financial disaster. If you study any empirical evidence, they're in a hopeless position. They've only been able to get away with it so far because the U.S. dollar is the world reserve currency. If the United States wasn't able to print money and was trapped in the European Union, it would just be a massive Spain.

HRN: So, governments can't inflate away their debt?

John Embry: Inflation is the easier, more expedient route to take, but I would not rule out an accident. For example, if policy makers push austerity too far they could trigger a deflationary spiral that would be impossible to reverse. I subscribe to the Austrian theory of economics. In his book Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote that there is no way to avoid the collapse of a credit boom and that more credit expansion simply destroys the currency.

HRN: Don't inflationary policies help banks and support the financial system?

John Embry: The ECB could do another Long-Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) or the Federal Reserve could buy more U.S. Treasuries in the open market but that's not really solving the problem. If you actually evaluated the banking system and marked all the assets to market, the system would be insolvent.

HRN: And the basic problem is too much debt and leverage?

John Embry: The over the counter (OTC) derivatives situation is so surreal I can't begin to express it. Correctly calculated, the notional value of all OTC derivatives is in excess of one quadrillion dollars globally. The vast majority are related to interest rates. Central banks have to keep creating liquidity to prevent these instruments from collapsing.

HRN: What can the Federal Reserve and other central banks do?

John Embry: They're lost either way. They're running a massive lab experiment with monetary policy and don't have a clue what the outcome is going to be.

HRN: Do you think the U.S. economy can grow its way out of debt?

John Embry: When I was a kid back in the 1950's, most women didn't work. Americans maintained their standard of living by putting a second person to work. When that was expended they made up the difference by going into debt and, eventually, they used their homes as cash machines. Now student loans total more than $1 trillion. I just don't see where the consumer demand is going to come from going forward. You can't get blood out of a stone.

HRN: What do you think the outcome is going be?

John Embry: I believe that before this is over we'll have a new currency system, probably backed by gold.

HRN: Do you support the gold standard?

John Embry: One of the greatest periods of wealth creation was when we had a gold standard in the second half of the 19th century. It's hard to believe that it's going to be 41 years since there has been gold backing for any of the major currencies in the world. That is what has allowed the massive build up of debt that we have today. If there had been a gold standard, we wouldn't be in the position we are in. Western governments don't want the gold standard because it restricts their ability to dole out favors.

HRN: But the gold standard doesn't prevent financial panics.

John Embry: There are always going to be financial panics, but, under the gold standard they tend to be short term. If we had had a gold standard, there would have been a number of cleansing periods where excess debt was eliminated. The Federal Reserve allowed the build up of debt that led to the stock market bubble and crash of 1929 and to the Great Depression, which was followed by World War II. It took about a decade to build up the debt and more than a decade to deal with the fallout. It's taken more than 40 years to build up the debt we have today and I don't know how long it's going to take to correct it.

HRN: What does this mean for the average person?

John Embry: I think living standards of most people in the world, particularly in the West are going to decline precipitously. The Federal Reserve recently reported that the net worth of the median American family has fallen nearly 40% since 2007 after adjusting for inflation. Before this all plays out, I think the percentages are going to be far larger.

HRN: Do you foresee any wider impact on society?

John Embry: When I was growing up in the United States after World War II, I didn't realize how remarkably fortunate we were as a society to have such a strong middle class. Seldom in history has there been a middle class to equal what transpired in the U.S. and Canada from the 1950s to the 1980s. We basically took it for granted because that's all we ever knew. The middle class in the United States is disappearing. What happens is that you have massive poverty and a small wealthy class. It's one of the worst things that can happen to a society and it can lead to civil unrest. If there's no reason to buy into the system, people will act up.

HRN: Do you view gold and silver as commodities?

John Embry: I view gold and silver as monetary metals. The mainstream news media conflates gold and silver with industrial commodities, but they're really a competitor to the currency system. Gold is the antithesis of paper money.

HRN: I've read that central banks are buying gold.

John Embry: Confidence in currencies is misplaced. There is a strong flow of gold from West to East. The Chinese, Indians, Russians and Vietnamese know perfectly well what's going on with the U.S. dollar and the Euro. They are buying physical gold and the West has been stupid enough to sell it to them.

HRN: What's your view on China?

John Embry: I'm not optimistic on China in the short run. The People's Bank of China (PBoC) recently cut bank reserve requirements by 150 basis points to stimulate 1.2 trillion yuan ($190 billion) of new lending because they don't want growth to fall from around 8% to 7%. As I see it, they've dined out on Western profligacy for 20 years and have become the most unbalanced economy in the world. An inordinate amount of China's economic activity is generated by exports and by all manner of capital spending on manufacturing, real estate, infrastructure and more. The slowdown in the world economy has revealed massive overcapacity in many sectors.

HRN: Can China develop a consumer-driven economy?

John Embry: The idea that China's economy can morph into a consumer-driven economy is preposterous. The very same consumers are employed in sectors like manufacturing where there is massive overcapacity. If the world slides into another global recession, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, I don't see how China stays out of it and if they don't then there's no engine of growth left in the world.

HRN: So, even with a rising middle class, China remains dependent on exports?

John Embry: The fact is that China has become the world's manufacturer but the ability of their two largest customers, Europe and the United States, to consume is being constrained. China is not going to be able to keep selling more year over year. The HSBC manufacturing index has fallen to recessionary levels.

HRN: It has been predicted that China will become the world's largest economy. Do you think that's true?

John Embry: I think China will probably dominate the 21st century. The U.S. dominated the 20th century but it went through some very tough times in the first half of the century.

HRN: With a slowdown in China, what's your view on commodities like copper or crude oil?

John Embry: In the short term, I'm worried about commodities. In a deep global recession, I expect there will be extreme monetary debasement, which will hold up the nominal prices of commodities more than supply and demand factors would suggest.

HRN: Do you foresee a bear market in commodities?

John Embry: We are in a short-term bear market that will be arrested by monetary debasement.

HRN: But there are value buying opportunities?

John Embry: Given my views on currencies, commodities that are already depressed could be decent repositories for wealth. I like agricultural products. As the global economy continues to develop, I think the supply of food is going to be a major issue.

HRN: How can investors protect their assets in a global recession?

John Embry: The only things I'm comfortable holding are precious metals and, because they are so cheap now, precious metals mining shares.

HRN: Where do you think the price of gold will end up?

John Embry: I'm more concerned with how many ounces I own than with how many U.S. dollars I can get for them at any given point in time. Gold and paper money are going in opposite directions.

HRN: Thank you for your valuable time.

John Embry: It was my pleasure.

After Words

John Embry doesn't mince words and his track record speaks for itself. A defender of the gold standard, John Embry sees gold and silver as currencies competing against the U.S. dollar and the Euro, which are losing value because of extreme debt levels, weak economic fundamentals and policy induced inflation. According to John Embry, abandoning the gold standard has led to unprecedented debt levels that could take decades to unwind. In the mean time, inflation seems likely to wipe out the middle class. While his outlook for commodities is bearish, John Embry believes that gold and silver and related mining shares remain the best way for investors to preserve their wealth.

Interview: Eric Sprott on Gold and QE2

Ron Hera — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:23:00 GMT

The Hera Research Newsletter (HRN) is pleased to present the following exclusive interview with Eric Sprott, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Sprott Asset Management LP and Chairman and CEO of Sprott Money, Ltd. With over 35 years of experience in the investment industry, Mr. Sprott is the Senior Portfolio Manager for numerous funds comprising several billion dollars in assets.

After earning his designation as a chartered accountant, Eric entered the investment industry as a research analyst at Merrill Lynch. In 1981, he founded Sprott Securities (now called Cormark Securities Inc.), which today is one of Canada’s largest independently owned securities firms. After establishing Sprott Asset Management Inc. in December 2001 as a separate entity, Eric divested his entire ownership of Sprott Securities to its employees.

Eric’s investment abilities are well represented by his track record in managing the Sprott Hedge Fund L.P., Sprott Hedge Fund L.P. II, Sprott Bull/Bear RSP Fund, Sprott Offshore Funds, Sprott Canadian Equity Fund, Sprott Energy Fund and Sprott Managed Accounts. In December 2004, the Sprott Hedge Fund L.P. was awarded the Opportunistic Strategy Hedge Fund Award at the Canadian Investment Awards. In addition, the Sprott Offshore Fund Ltd. won the 2006 MarHedge Annual Performance Award under the Canada-Based Manager category. Furthermore, in October 2006, Eric was the recipient of the 2006 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award (Financial Services) and the 2006 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year for Ontario. In December 2007, Eric was named Fund Manager of the Year by Investment Executive, a widely circulated publication for Canadian financial advisers. In October 2008, the Sprott Offshore Fund Ltd. won the award for the Best Long/Short Hedge Fund globally by HFM Week, a leading publication for the global hedge fund industry.

Eric’s predictions on the state of the North American financial markets have been captured throughout the last several years in a series of investment strategy articles entitled “Markets At A Glance”.

Hera Research Newsletter (HRN): Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today. You’ve commented in your articles and elsewhere that the financial problems of the United States are much more serious than one might imagine based on the official statements of the US government.

Eric Sprott: The situation goes back at least to 2000 when we saw the Nasdaq rolling over. Before it rolled over, we’d written about it, in fact, we almost to the day published an article entitled “Speculation is Rampant, Don’t be a Part of It”. From that point on, I’ve believed we’re in a secular bear market. The Nasdaq certainly has been in a secular bear market since then. Somehow they resurrected the S&P and the Dow but in order to do it they had to start a housing mania and a lending mania and now, a government spending mania. We still think that the situation peaked in 2000 and continues today in a secular bear market, but it’s morphing into a bigger problem.

HRN: What is the bigger problem?

Eric Sprott: The bigger problem that we have today is where the sovereign risk stands and the size of the US deficit and I think that the question today is “Does Keynesianism work?” In other words, if you spend money it’s supposed to stimulate your economy, but there have been a number of reports suggesting that the opposite happens, that you get a negative return for government spending. One study was done in Canada by the Fraser Institute and another was done by three Harvard professors and their conclusions were that government spending was not good for private enterprises, period. You can see this if you look at a chart showing the marginal value of each dollar spent by the US government from 1960 to today.

HRN: Do you mean the marginal return on a dollar of debt?

Eric Sprott: The marginal value of government expenditures, yes, debt, essentially the deficit spending. The economic effect of running deficits is now something like negative 40 cents on the dollar. I think Keynesianism is sort of being stood on its ear and it seems quite likely that there is a negative return on deficit spending. For example, if the US government extended unemployment insurance benefits yet again, what do we all think the people receiving unemployment benefits would do? Would they be rushing out to get a job or not rushing out to get a job? You see, deficit spending almost always works against the system. When I look at US GDP, which I think last year probably went up by $400 billion, but, at the end of the day, there was an extra debt of $1.5 trillion and this year it will probably go up by the same amount, any thinking person would realize that if you tack on $3 trillion of debt and you’ve got less than $1 trillion of GDP growth, that’s a formula for bankruptcy.

^{Chart courtesy of} ^{Nathan A. Martin}

HRN: Are you saying government stimulus doesn’t work because debt rises faster than GDP?

Eric Sprott: Yes, it doesn’t work. I’m not even including debt at the state and municipal levels. I’m just using federal debt. Debt at other levels of government in the US is going up too, but not at the rate the federal government debt is increasing.

HRN: What sort of outcome or endgame do you foresee?

Eric Sprott: A few months ago, I wrote an article entitled “Surreality Check Part Two… Dead Government Walking” where I specifically zeroed in on the US government. When I wrote Surreality Check … Dead Men Walking back in November of 2007, I predicted that some companies—I pointed out Citigroup, GM, Fannie, Freddie—were all broke. They had pretty good market caps at the time, but the reality was that they were broke and I think the reality is that the US government is broke. If you take all of the unfunded liabilities—the number is something like $60 trillion or $100 trillion—there’s absolutely no way that it can be repaid. They’re going to have to repudiate some obligation, just as other governments are doing now. For example, the UK and France and maybe even Germany all extended the number of years you have to work before you get a pension. There is a sense of repudiation of what they promised and that will have to happen in the US as well.

HRN: Is debt monetization a repudiation of debt?

Eric Sprott: All of history says we shouldn’t trust government, so why do we trust the money that the government says is worth something when the history of governments is one broken promise after another? The only thing they’ve done, over the last 90 years or so, is to keep gouging the taxpayer, while at the same time racking up increasing debt. There’s very little responsibility at the government level for the financial well being of a country in the long run. Fiat money will all go back to its intrinsic value, which is zero. You need real things to support the valuation of currencies. I find it absolutely shocking that we trust government.

HRN: Since you expect fiat currencies to fall in value, do you also expect real assets to rise in price?

Eric Sprott: I think it depends on the class of the real asset and what determines its value. For example, I always question real estate because a lot of real estate is so indebted. If people have to pay their debts back you can have real estate going down, even though you might be in QE2 or QE3 by the time, because there’s just not enough cash flow being generated. I think of things like agricultural products, oil and gas. I think of things that can be used as a medium of exchange, such as gold and probably silver, or maybe other precious metals but that’s the category I think is the most survivable in terms of holding its value.

HRN: Is that why you’ve invested in precious metals and gold in particular, to survive the bear market?

Eric Sprott: My history with gold goes back to about 2000 when things were bottoming out there and, in fact, coincided with our belief that we were going into a bear market. When you look at any bear market, you think “How do you survive it?” We’ve thought ‘you’ve got to have gold and gold stocks’ and it’s worked out so beautifully that it’s shocking. To think that the markets over the last 10 years are down and gold is up something like 500% and gold stocks are up something like 1200% from their lows. That’s been the place to be.

HRN: It seems a lot of money is flowing into the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (NYSE:PHYS).

Eric Sprott: As it applies to US residents, the tax rate on a capital gain in the Sprott Physical Gold Trust is 15% today whereas if you own the ETF, because gold is considered a collectible by the IRS, the tax rate is 28%. That’s a big reason for people to choose this vehicle versus an ETF. In addition to the tax benefits for US investors, the gold is held at the Royal Canadian Mint in Ottawa and to some people in the US that’s a good thing, because they’d like to see it out of the country. Also, the trustee is not a levered financial institution. The trustees for the gold and silver ETFs are levered financial institutions and therefore, when you have leverage there’s always potential risk. Of course, the reason we started it was that a lot of people realized there’s so much paper gold around that when you go to claim your gold it’s not going to be there.

HRN: I understand there’s a premium of between 5% and 10% for shares in PHYS over the spot price of gold.

Eric Sprott: We wanted people to be able to literally get their physical gold, so there’s a mechanism where, if you can buy a bar, which is 400 ounces, we will deliver it. The physical quality of it—the knowledge that the gold is there—in addition to the tax advantages, creates the premium. I think it’s justified. There are certainly no other North American vehicles where you can get physical gold. That’s why we created this vehicle.

HRN: So, there’s a level of insurance that’s just not there with ETFs like GLD. Do you view gold purely as insurance or do you also view gold as currency?

Eric Sprott: When I first got involved in gold, I came to the conclusion, based on Frank Veneroso’s book, The Gold Book Annual 1998 (Jefferson Financial, 1998), that the gold market was being suppressed by central banks and that that logjam had to break. Veneroso proved that there were sellers of about 400 tons a year. Given enough time, their willingness to sell gold had to run out. Now we are in a situation where central banks, which used to be sellers of gold, have become buyers of gold. The gold market is very small. The mines produce, let’s say, 2,600 tons per year and the central banks used to sell 400 tons. That’s a lot of tons in a 2,600 ton a year market. Now, central banks are buyers of probably 200 tons or more. I think the World Gold Council estimated that central banks bought as much as 400 tons last year. Imagine a shift of going from a seller of 400 to a buyer of 400 in a mine supplied market of 2,600 tons. Where are all of the normal users of gold going to get gold with this huge change at the central bank level?

HRN: It’s curious that central banks would have sold gold as the price was declining and are now buying when the price is rising.

Eric Sprott: Now we have gold ETFs, that didn’t even exist 10 years ago, and they are now among the largest owners of gold in the world. There are also funds like ours and Paulson & Co. or David Einhorn’s fund, Greenlight Capital, as well as various pension funds that now own gold but that never owned gold 10 years ago. Where are these funds getting all of their gold when they weren’t even part of the supply and demand equation 10 years ago? I wonder where all of this gold is coming from. I’ve always been suspicious that it’s surreptitiously coming out of the central banks.

HRN: Central banks manage the exchange rates of currencies, which is no secret. If gold is still treated as a currency, the gold exchange rate might be managed, as it was under the London Gold Pool.

Eric Sprott: Central banks can also influence bond markets, and not just government bonds. Last year the US Federal Reserve bought $1.2 trillion worth of mortgage backed securities.

HRN: That was a huge injection of liquidity.

Eric Sprott: We’ve had a huge shot in the arm both in the financial markets and in the fiscal markets, but we took on huge debts as well. The hand of government in everything has been unbelievable and what do we have to show for it as we sit here today? We’ve seen the economic data fall off a cliff: retail sales, new home sales, consumer confidence, the Baltic Dry Index, the Chinese stock market index. I mean, the things that have fallen off the table have been so dramatic and over such a short time.

^{Chart courtesy of} ^{InvestmentTools.com}

HRN: We’re not seeing much of a recovery in the US.

Eric Sprott: In some of the data you’re seeing, no recovery. Housing, for example, is at a dead, flat bottom. I expect that car sales are going to start doing the same thing. In fact, we’re going negative right now: the leading economic indicators, the ECRI Index, I mean everything. You’ve got to think we’re just going straight down, not even slowly.

HRN: You mentioned the heavy hand of government in these massive interventions.

Eric Sprott: The conclusive evidence is that when governments get involved with things, the impact is negative because you get a misuse of funds. It’s like the Fed goes in and buys a bunch of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) so the housing market stays together but if they stop, the housing market collapses because it was a misallocation of resources. We should not have been encouraging people to be buying houses. We should have been doing the opposite: saving money. We have to learn to save here both at the individual level, the corporate level and at the government level. The government is giving all the wrong signals, they’re getting the wrong people to do exactly the wrong things and it makes the problem that much bigger.

HRN: Would it be fair to say that, in your view, central planning and the economy is just sort of an ineffective strategy?

Eric Sprott: You know, I think we’d all agree when we hear that statement. Central planning doesn’t work, but then when it comes to our own government, all they want to do is centrally plan even though they don’t think they’re centrally planning, but, by god, they are. The US government is saying that to make the economy go they’re going to run a trillion and a half dollar deficit. If that’s not central planning, I don’t know what it is.

HRN: I think the US national debt is expected to reach $20 trillion. Do you think the US is going to be able to borrow and roll over debt at those levels?

Eric Sprott: Where does the money come from? Theoretically, the money has to come from companies or individuals. If we just took one country and said that they should fund themselves from the earnings of companies and savings of individuals and if there were no way, between the individuals and the companies, that they had the money every year to throw into government, it wouldn’t work. The US government funded itself with debt all of last year and certainly into March of this year. The thinking is that between the Fed buying financial assets in the market and the banks buying government debt and not lending, that they’ve been able to fund the government, but we’re going to find that it’s not sustainable. The process of asking people to be indebted to the tune of a trillion and a half dollars per year just at the federal level is impossible; and to do it several years in a row with the growing legacy of the debt is not sustainable. What if interest rates were where they really should be?

HRN: Do you think that, with a weakening dollar, the real interest rate could be negative right now?

Eric Sprott: This 0% interest rate policy, 20 years from now, will be looked at as one of the biggest financial jokes of all time. Of course, the primary beneficiaries are the banks and the government. Banks can borrow for nothing and the government can borrow for next to nothing, but the true interest rate should be much higher. I mean, what’s the point of saving? You’re asking somebody to save to fund the deficit and then you pay them nothing to save. What’s the point? You get nothing for your savings. Why would people save?

HRN: With a second round of quantitative easing, QE2, do you think there could be a loss of confidence in US government debt or in the US dollar?

Eric Sprott: We have a dilemma staring us in the face and I don’t see an easy way out of it. People will start questioning sovereign risk. It started with Ireland; it went to Iceland; it went to Greece; it’s maybe now with Portugal or Spain and it might be washing up on the shores of North America. As you know, the dollar has been quite weak recently and I think, as more and more people assess the problem, they’ll find that there aren’t many safe sovereign places to go. There just aren’t many. They’re very, very rare. Either there will be no QE2 and interest rates will go higher, or, if there is a QE2, interest rates can stay low, but ultimately, if we then go on to QE3 or QE4, the gig will be up because everyone will realize we’re just printing money and we’re not getting out of this problem. If we’re just printing and printing and printing, people will want to convert their bank deposits to something real because they’ll realize that fiat money is not going to hold its value.

HRN: What do you see as a solution here? What’s the path forward for the world?

Eric Sprott: I don’t think there’s a solution. People always say to me, “When would you not be bearish?” I say, “Well, I won’t be bearish when I see people in the central banking community and in the sovereign area start to take responsibility.” One might argue that maybe we’ve seen the first signs of that over in Europe and the UK and Greece with austerity. What’s interesting is that most of these programs start a year later. They don’t start today. It will be interesting to see when we get there, how powerful those programs will be.

HRN: Are the European austerity measures indirect bailouts, preserving sovereign debt?

Eric Sprott: That’s why they announce them. We saw QE with the ECB when they put a trillion dollars in for the Greek bailout. If they hadn’t announced austerity programs what would we all be thinking? You can’t get the bailout and not at least say you’re going to try to stop spending money. It was almost mandatory for people to say at the time. They all had to chime in because the Euro and the European banking system were under immense pressure. Deposits were leaving those countries, so they had to do something.

HRN: How do you foresee the sovereign debt situation unwinding?

Eric Sprott: I think we’re too far gone. There’s way too much debt. Just the federal debt is something like $40,000 for every American, so a family of four has got $160,000 in debt they’ve got to lug around; and that’s forgetting the states. I don’t think we can work our way out of it. We’ve gone for 60 years by expanding debt and, all of a sudden, that era ends and you have a contraction and the contraction will be rather elongated.

HRN: Thank you for sharing your views with us.

Eric Sprott: Thanks a lot.

After Words

Eric Sprott’s track record as a Portfolio Manager and as an entrepreneur in the natural resource sector speaks for itself. Whether one agrees with Eric Sprott’s skepticism regarding the fiscal responsibility of governments, the soundness of fiat currencies, or the stability of debt-laden companies and sovereigns, his contrarian analysis has enabled him to capitalize on the trade of the decade: gold. Between the anemic US economy, the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates and purchases of financial assets, as well as the US federal government’s deficits, and a second round of quantitative easing (QE2), the US dollar will certainly weaken further, fueling demand for gold.

Interview: Dr. Marc Faber on the Federal Reserve and Hyperinflation

Ron Hera — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:07:00 GMT

The Hera Research Newsletter (HRN) is delighted to present the following powerful interview with noted speaker and best selling author Dr. Marc Faber, whose newsletter, The Gloom Boom & Doom Report, highlights unusual investment opportunities. Dr. Faber is a popular speaker at investment seminars and conferences around the world and is best known for his contrarian investment approach.

Born in Zurich, Switzerland, Dr. Faber went to school in Geneva and Zurich and finished high school with the Matura. He studied Economics at the University of Zurich and, at the age of 24, obtained a PhD in Economics magna cum laude.

Between 1970 and 1978, Dr. Faber worked for White Weld & Company Limited in New York, Zurich and Hong Kong and, since 1973, has lived in Hong Kong. From 1978 to February 1990, he was the Managing Director of Drexel Burnham Lambert (HK) Ltd.

Dr. Faber’s best selling book Tomorrow’s Gold – Asia's Age of Discovery has been translated into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai and German. Dr. Faber is a regular contributor to several leading financial publications around the world.

Dr. Faber, who is an investment adviser and fund manager associated with a variety of funds, is a member of the Board of Directors of numerous companies around the world.

Hera Research Newsletter (HRN): Thank you for joining us today. You’ve commented that the Federal Reserve’s policies have been linked to past boom and bust cycles in the US economy. Why do you believe that?

Dr. Marc Faber: Booms and busts happen also under the gold standard like we had in the 19th century various railroad and canal booms, and we also had real estate booms, first on the east coast in Chicago, then, at end of the century, in California. What the Federal Reserve has really done is create a lot of economic volatility. If you look back at the various crisis starting with the S&L crisis in 1990, then the Tequila crisis [the Mexican Peso crisis] in 1994, then Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), the NASDAQ bubble and at the current crisis, each crisis actually became worse and worse and the bubbles became bigger and bigger. The Federal Reserve did not pay any attention to excessive credit growth. The reason I am so negative about the Federal Reserve’s policies is that they only target core inflation and argue that they can’t identify bubbles, but when each bubble bursts they flood the system with liquidity that bring about unintended consequences.

HRN: What would be an example of that?

Dr. Marc Faber: Commodity prices peaked in May 2006 and after May 2006, especially in 2007, where there was actually a slowdown in the global economy and so there was no reason for commodity prices to go ballistic, but the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates after September 2007. In a global economy that was going into recession, the price of oil went from $78 to $147 and that burdened the US consumer with additional “tax” of five hundred billion dollars. I am not saying that is the only reason but it helped push the US consumer into recession. The fact is that without the Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policy after 2001, we wouldn't have had a housing bubble to the same extent. The Federal Reserve’s policies basically encouraged sub prime lending; it’s not the case that they discouraged it.

HRN: Is there a relationship between monetary expansion and the fact that the US economy depends so heavily on consumption?

Dr. Marc Faber: Basically, if you look at consumption as a percent of the economy and at housing activity, the excessive debt growth began essentially after LTCM and, I have to say, it was a huge mistake of the Treasury and Fed to bailout LTCM because it gave Market participants in the financial sector a signal that there is a Greenspan put, and later on a Bernanke put, with an even higher strike price and this resulted in excess leverage. So, if you have problems, the Federal Reserve will bail you out or the system will bail you out. That’s where I think the Federal Reserve acted irresponsibly—irresponsibly—that has to be said very clearly. They didn't pay attention to credit growth. Every central banker in the world pays attention to credit growth, but not in the US.

HRN: What would you recommend that the Federal Reserve do differently?

Dr. Marc Faber: The first action Mr. Bernanke should take is to resign. If I had messed up the system so badly, as he has done, I would have to resign. He has talked constantly about the Great Depression and what caused the depression but the problem is that he really doesn't understand what caused the depression, which was also excessive leverage at that time. I have to stress that in 1929 the debt to GDP ratio was of course minuscule in comparison what it is today. It was 186% of GDP but you didn't have Social security, Medicare and Medicaid and unfunded liabilities for Social Security and so forth. So, debt today, as a percent of GDP, is 379% and if you add the unfunded liabilities we are at over 800%. The Federal Reserve should pay attention to that.

HRN: With debt levels and liabilities so high, what solution is there for the United States?

Dr. Marc Faber: The solution is, basically, for the government to move out and not intervene in the economy. There are economists who will dispute that the Federal Reserve is partially responsible for the crisis and there are economists that will still tell you that debt doesn’t matter, that deficits don't matter and they want to continue to intervene in the free market constantly. To these economists I respond: What about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? It was an intervention by the government into the housing market and into the mortgage market and the biggest bankruptcies—bigger than Citigroup and all the banks—are Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac—government-sponsored enterprises. The same economists will tell you that the government has to intervene and to these economists I say: Well, you have made so many mistakes already with interventions do you think that in the future your interventions will improve anything? Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, but these economists and the Federal Reserve think that by more interventions with fiscal measures and more money printing they will improve things. No, they won’t. They will make things worse.

HRN: It seems the US is moving towards more government intervention into the free market rather than less.

Dr. Marc Faber: Yes. That’s why I’m very negative about economic growth in the US. It just won’t happen. Can the US economy grow at 2% per annum or, in the best case scenario, at 3% per annum with current policies? Yes, but it will create a lot of distortions. The best case for an economy that goes into a boom phase, in other words over consumption, is to bring it back into the trend line as quickly as possible. So when you have an excursion into a boom, what you need is a cleansing of the system and that may take a few years to happen in the US because the excesses were built up not just in the last 7 years between 2000 and 2007 but, over the last 25 years. So, to really bring the US back into sanity—into a healthy mode where the economy can grow—might take 5 to 10 years, but it won’t happen under the Obama administration.

HRN: Given the poor prospects for US economic growth, do you foresee a flight of capital from the United States?

Dr. Marc Faber: You would be out of your mind, with health care reforms and with the government interventions and the uncertainty about future taxes in the US, to even consider expanding in the US and this is a problem. I mean people say that loan demand is down because banks are not lending, but maybe nobody wants to borrow any money in the US and nobody wants to expand in the US but they are expanding in China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Africa and Brazil. The business world is an international place today, and if you run a corporation, whether you employee 50 people or 10,000, you can choose where you invest your money in terms of capital spending. Where do you want to expand factories? If I employed people in the US, I would rather think of reducing the 50 employees maybe to only 20.

HRN: Where should American investors put their money?

Dr. Marc Faber: Different people have different investment objectives but I made a presentation recently where I showed, that in terms of goods markets, the emerging world is now larger than the developed world and so I think people should have at least 50% of their money in emerging economies. With interest rates at zero and with the prospect that they will stay at zero, or below zero in real terms for a long time, I think cash is not particularly attractive. I think US government bonds are unattractive in the long run, although they may be attractive for the next three months. I would recommend to people to accumulate precious metals and invest in a basket of shares in emerging economies.

HRN: Are you saying you would consider buying gold even at today’s prices?

Dr. Marc Faber: Yes, I keep accumulating gold although in the next three months it may go down and not up, but maybe it won’t go down. To me, it doesn’t really matter if it goes down by 10% or 20% or whether it stays where it is. I think if in case gold came down 20% it would be because tightening of global liquidity and, in that scenario, equities wouldn’t do particularly well either.

HRN: You mentioned that cash is not attractive. What are the prospects for the US dollar?

Dr. Marc Faber: The dollar has been relatively weak in the last few years. It’s just that the other currencies are not much better. There has been a tendency for the dollar to weaken and certainly it has weakened against the price of oil, against the price of precious metals and raw materials and it's lost its purchasing power. There is no question about the fact that, today, if you have $100,000 you can buy less than 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Just look at the housing market. It has come down somewhat but a house is much more expensive than in 1980.

HRN: Can you comment on inflation versus deflation?

Dr. Marc Faber: In this whole inflation and deflation debate investors have to realize that in a system—say you have a room like this and then the money is dropped from helicopters into this room, it can flow into real estate; it can flow into equities; it can flow into precious metals; it can flow into the art market or it can flow out into other currencies or into commodities that the Federal Reserve doesn’t control. They only control essentially how much money they will drop from the helicopters.

HRN: Is this an example of why central planning of the economy by the Federal Reserve isn’t effective?

Dr. Marc Faber: Yes. Exactly.

HRN: Do you think hyperinflation in the US is possible?

Dr. Marc Faber: The Federal Reserve doesn’t want to create a hyperinflation. I mean Mr. Bernanke may be incompetent, but he’s not an evil person per se. He just doesn’t have sufficient knowledge to be a central banker, in my opinion, and has misguided economic theories, but he’s not evil in the sense that he would not wish to debase the currency entirely. Clearly, if the US economy moves into a double dip recession and you have deflationary pressures reappearing, in the housing market, for example, and if the S&P drops from roughly 1,100 down to say 900, then I think further monetization will happen. I believe that because of the unfunded liabilities and the deficits of the US government, which will stay high for a long time; sooner or later there will be more monetization anyway.

It’s more a question of when it will happen rather than if it will happen. For sure it will happen but will it happen right away, say in September, or maybe only in two years time? Eventually, before everything collapses we’ll have an inflationary bout which may not be so strongly felt in consumer prices, as in stocks or housing or precious metals prices or in commodities like oil; or inflation could occur mostly in foreign currencies, in other words, in Asia where the currencies could appreciate.

HRN: Thank you for being so generous with your time.

Dr. Marc Faber: Thank you.

After Words

Dr. Marc Faber is not only one of the world’s most outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve and of its monetary policy, but is quite possibly the Federal Reserve’s most credible critic. Dr. Faber’s detailed, evidence-based arguments, linking Federal Reserve policy decisions, such as interest rate changes, to economic developments like the US housing bubble and oil price changes are supported by thorough research. Dr. Faber’s research raises serious questions about the results of central economic planning in the form of central bank monetary policy and about the wisdom of intervention into the economy by governments. The evidence suggests that centralized manipulation of money and credit has a destabilizing influence on the economy overall—it increases economic volatility—and has unintended consequences totally outside the control of so-called monetary authorities. History shows that well-intentioned lawmakers and their economic advisers cannot predict the outcomes and unintended consequences of economic interventions. Neither central bankers nor governments have been successful in substituting centrally planned economic agendas for the decentralized decisions of millions of entrepreneurs and owners of private capital, but they persist nonetheless with ever more centralized control and ever larger interventions. Dr. Faber confidently predicts that greater government control over the economy will hamper economic growth rather than stimulate it, and that interventions into the free market, no matter how large or well meaning, will continue to fail as they consistently have in the past.