Hera : deflation, Ben Bernanke

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: Jim Rickards on Inflation and Currency Wars

Ron Hera — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:31:00 GMT

The Hera Research Newsletter (HRN) is pleased to present an eye opening interview with James G. Rickards, Senior Managing Director of Tangent Capital Partners, a merchant bank specializing in alternative asset management solutions, and also Chief Operating Officer of Oro Capital Advisors, LLC, a commercial real estate advisory firm and Tangent Capital affiliate. He is a counselor, economist and investment advisor with 35 years experience in global capital markets.

Mr. Rickards has held senior executive positions at Citibank, RBS, Long-Term Capital Management and Caxton Associates. In 1998, he was the principal negotiator of the rescue of LTCM sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. His clients include private funds, investment banks and government directorates in national security and he is an advisor on global capital markets to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He is a frequent speaker at conferences on derivatives and hedge funds and is active in the International Bar Association. He has been interviewed in The Wall Street Journal and the Economist, has appeared on CNBC, Fox, CNN, BBC and NPR and is an Op-Ed contributor to the Financial Times, New York Times and the Washington Post.

Mr. Rickards, who is a visiting lecturer at the Kellogg School and the School of Advanced International Studies, has delivered papers on econophysics at the Applied Physics Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory and has written articles on cognitive diversity, network science and risk management. Mr. Rickards holds an LL.M. (Taxation) from the New York University School of Law; a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School; an M.A. in international economics from the School of Advanced International Studies and a B.A. (with honors) from The Johns Hopkins University.

Hera Research Newsletter (HRN): Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. Let’s talk about the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program (QE2). Is there a risk of price inflation?

Jim Rickards: I think there is a definite and highly significant danger of inflation coming from QE and QE2 specifically. A lot of people have said, in fact, the Fed has said, that, if you look at the key price indices, the Producer Price Index (PPI), Consumer Price Index (CPI), and the Personal Consumption (PC) price deflator, they are very, they use the phrase, “well behaved”. For the past year and a half, the critics, and I would include myself, have been saying that this situation is dangerous and unstable. The Fed has been pointing to the price indices and saying that you can’t find inflation under a rock, you can’t find inflation with a microscope, so what are you worried about?

HRN: Why do you think the situation is unstable?

Jim Rickards: There is a lot of inflation, but it is being offset by deflation. I compare it to an arm wrestling match. If you’ve ever seen an arm wrestling match with two really powerful participants, nothing really happens for a long time. The two arms just kind of sit there, then all of a sudden it starts to tip, then one guy just breaks and his arm is slammed down on the table. Just because nothing is happening at the surface doesn’t mean that a lot of things aren’t happening below the surface. In a depression, such as the one that began in 2007, you have very, very strong deflationary forces. I call it a natural deflation that’s being offset by policy inflation. So the fact that the price indices are around zero doesn’t mean that they’re well behaved, it just means that they’re masking the two tectonic forces that are pushing against each other.

HRN: Do you think deflation will win, or will it be inflation?

Jim Rickards: For the past year and a half, I’ve wondered which way it’s going to tip. If I’m right about those two forces, one of them is going to prevail at the end of the day and, on which one it’s going to be, I really reserve judgment because I could argue it both ways. I am now coming down on the side of inflation because the inflation is becoming very, very apparent. So, the first thing is that the well behaved indices are masking more than they’re telling us because, below the surface, there are powerful deflationary and inflationary forces fighting each other.

HRN: Why do you think inflation will win?

Jim Rickards: It’s been known since the 1950’s, as Milton Friedman pointed out, inflationary effects occur with the lag. The fact that you saw QE in 2009 and inflation didn’t show up until the end of 2010 really should not give you a lot of comfort because an 18 to 24 month lag is normal and would be expected. Sure enough, right on schedule, 18 months after QE1 was announced in mid-2009 we’re starting to see the inflation.

HRN: What does inflation in foreign countries have to with QE2?

Jim Rickards: There are some new forces in play since Friedman did his seminal work and, of course, it’s the result of globalization. What has been happening is that what would otherwise have been U.S. inflation is showing up in China and Taiwan and Korea and places like that because of the exchange rate mechanism. I put this under the heading of currency wars. In effect, China has been importing all of our inflation through the peg between the dollar and the yuan.

HRN: How does the yuan-dollar currency peg cause inflation in China?

Jim Rickards: Just think about the mechanics of it. There’s a lot of deleveraging going on, which is where the deflation comes from, so the Fed goes out and prints a whole bunch of dollars and spreads them around. Americans take a lot of those newly printed dollars and buy foreign goods so the dollars go to China, but China doesn’t want the yuan to appreciate because they want to maintain the peg, or at least they have until very recently. So, what do they do? They have to buy up the dollars. Well, in order to buy up the dollars they have to print yuan and basically give the yuan to the exporters in exchange for the dollars. Well, that’s basically flooding China with yuan and so the Fed’s printing press was being sterilized in America by the Chinese who were flooding their own country with their own local currency. So, through the exchange rate mechanism, and through the peg between the dollar and the yuan, our inflation was showing up in China and now it’s showing up in Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan and other places.

HRN: Can the U.S. keep exporting its inflation?

Jim Rickards: Like I said, inflation in the U.S. was being offset by natural deflation and there is a time lag before inflation shows up. It has taken a while for inflation to show up in China because they also had a lag. U.S. inflation was being exported through the currency exchange rate mechanism, but all good things come to an end. These things are now coming to an end for two specific reasons. Number one, the time lag just works its way through, and I think commodity prices, input prices, are where the inflation is really starting to show up and it will work its way through the supply chain and eventually show up in retail. Number two, the Chinese have now thrown in the towel on the appreciation or revaluation of the yuan and the reason for that is inflation.

HRN: So, the Chinese yuan will rise versus the U.S. dollar?

Jim Rickards: Inflation is just another form of revaluation. What do you do when you revalue your currency? Well, you increase your cost structure relative to other countries. You make your goods more expensive from the view of a U.S. purchaser, let’s say. Well, inflation does the same thing, inflation increases your cost structure. So, inflation and revaluation are the same thing economically with one very important difference; revaluation you can control, but inflation very quickly gets out of control. The Chinese, once they saw the inflation, said, well, look, this is going to happen anyway, our cost structure is going up and there’s nothing we can do about it. Our choice is between control and lack of control and, of course, they’re control freaks, so they’re going to go with control, which means they’re going to go with the revaluation and try to stay ahead of the inflation.

HRN: Do the Chinese have any other option?

Jim Rickards: They thought they had an ability to keep a lid on their domestic inflation through price controls. We all know that price controls always ultimately fail, but they can work in the short run, especially if you have a more coercive society and I would put China in that category. Whether there was going to be a black market or offshore money or the inability to enforce their rules at the local level, I think they quickly realized price controls were a losing battle.

HRN: What about other export nations, like Brazil?

Jim Rickards: The Fed is flooding the world with dollars and, as former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Connally famously said in the 1970’s, “it may be our currency, but it’s your problem”. Raising interest rates, currency debasement and capital controls are all tools in the toolbox that exporters can use to deal with Fed monetary policy and QE2. We’re seeing capital controls in Brazil, for example. Brazil couldn’t really control the appreciation of the real, there was just too much demand, too much hot money flowing into emerging markets, Brazil in particular. So there wasn’t much they could do about it from a currency point of view, so they’re putting in capital controls. The next step down that road, you pretty quickly go from currency wars to trade wars and trade wars lead to tariffs and then export quotas. We’re seeing a little bit of that in China with rare earth elements (REEs), although there’s another agenda with respect to REEs having to do with encouraging manufacturers to put their plants in China so they can get guaranteed access to the REEs.

HRN: Will the revaluation of the yuan and capital controls in other countries cause prices to rise in the U.S.?

Jim Rickards: The inflationary chickens are coming home to roost in the United States. Once the Chinese throw in the towel and revalue the yuan, all of that inflation that Bernanke has been trying to get, but which has been going to China, etc. will show up in the U.S. I think, we’re looking at significant inflationary forces, for all of the reasons I just mentioned, and that’s probably going to be the story of 2011.

HRN: So, the Federal Reserve caused inflation in Asia, South America and elsewhere resulting in currency wars and now there’s a risk of trade wars?

Jim Rickards: Correct.

HRN: If the U.S. economy is recovering, why doesn’t the Federal Reserve stop QE2?

Jim Rickards: When you see data that point in a positive direction, you have to take a step back and say, OK, objectively, the data points in a positive direction but how much of that is policy induced and how much of that is self sustaining? My view is that almost all of it is policy induced and very little of it is self sustaining. I reach that conclusion by looking at data where, if we were in a self sustaining recovery, other things would be getting better and they’re not, such as unemployment. That suggests to me that it’s not a self sustaining recovery, therefore, I conclude that it’s mostly policy induced, which means the Fed is going to have to keep going.

HRN: Can inflation help the U.S. economy to grow and help to reduce unemployment?

Jim Rickards: The main reason the Fed wants inflation has very little to do with growth and everything to do with the debt overhang and the fragility of the banking system. People forget that the Fed exists to help the banks. It’s the whole reason for the Fed.

HRN: Isn’t the purpose of the Federal Reserve to promote price stability and full employment?

Jim Rickards: The Fed was created by banks and it exists to prop up the banking system. The idea that it’s somehow a benign moderator of economic conditions, in my view, is nonsense. The Fed is first and foremost a device to prop up banks and, right now, the biggest problem in the banks is their bad assets.

HRN: Didn’t the bailouts and the Federal Reserve’s purchases of mortgage-backed securities clean up the bad assets?

Jim Rickards: The bad assets haven’t gone anywhere. They were identified in 2007, but they had been there all along. The bad loans were made in 2004, 2005 and 2006 because Greenspan and the Fed’s Board of Governors kept interest rates too low too long, so that’s when the bad loans were made. They were identified as such in 2007 and then we had the panic of 2008, but what’s important to understand is that the bad loans haven’t gone anywhere. It’s not as if they’ve been magically transformed into good loans, it’s not as if they’ve been marked down, it’s not as if they’ve moved from weak hands to strong hands. What’s happened is, they’ve basically been locked in amber, frozen on the balance sheets of the banks.

HRN: So, the Federal Reserve wants inflation to help banks that made bad loans?

Jim Rickards: The Fed is hoping for a couple of things. First of all, they’re hoping that inflation comes back so that, at least, the nominal values get back somewhere closer to where the loans were originated. Of course, the real value has all been eroded, but who cares? If you’re a bank, you just want that nominal value so you don’t have to take the loss and the hit to capital. Second, they’re hoping that, because of the steepness of the yield curve, the banks could eventually earn their way out of the problem and make provisions for the bad loans. Obviously, they’re going to the zero interest rate policy and so, with those two things in mind, the Fed wants the inflation to come and help the banks and give them time to recover.

HRN: Wouldn’t inflation also reduce the real value of the U.S. federal government’s debt?

Jim Rickards: The United States has well over $100 trillion in obligations. Now, that’s not all bonded debt, the actual debt is significantly less than that, but when you throw in contingent obligation arising from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Authority (FHA), Federal Home Loan Bank, student loans, etc., etc. The point is, you can just go on and on with these obligations. The number is well north of $100 trillion. Now, it’s not all due and payable in the next couple of years, these are 20 year obligations, but then you have to say where are we going to get growth for the next 20 years to meet these obligations? That’s very hard to see.

HRN: So, the U.S. economy can’t grow its way out of debt?

Jim Rickards: I don’t see any feasible combination of growth and taxes that will generate enough income to pay off the debt. People warn about the debt trap, to me it’s already too late. We’ve already fallen into a hole where, mathematically, it’s impossible to earn enough to pay off the debt. The debt is compounding faster than growth is being generated and raising taxes is not a solution because that will kill growth, so you just can’t get there.

HRN: What can the U.S. federal government do about its debt?

Jim Rickards: There are two ways to deal with the debt. One is to just default; I just won’t pay you. The other one, of course, is the one that governments prefer which is inflation. You say, OK, here’s your trillion dollars and good luck buying a loaf of bread with it; it’s just not going to be worth very much. So, that’s what we’re doing and that’s another reason why Bernanke wants inflation. Of course, he doesn’t want hyperinflation, he doesn’t want 10%, but he doesn’t need 10%. If you do 4% a year for 17 years, you cut the value of the debt in half. So, that $100 trillion figure I referred to, in real terms, becomes something more like $50 trillion, which is still a big number, but much more manageable than $100 trillion. He says he wants 2% or slightly less. I think that’s disingenuous, I think what he would like is something more like 3% or 4% where, over a 15 to 20 year period, you could really reduce the value of the debt in real terms very significantly.

HRN: If the U.S. is debasing the dollar, why is there strong demand for U.S. Treasuries?

Jim Rickards: The reason the Treasury auctions are going well is because the Fed is buying. Think about what quantitative easing really is. The amount of quantitative easing over the 6 month period from November to June is approximately equal to the federal deficit. In other words, the federal deficit is running about $1.4 trillion a year, so half of it would be $700 billion and the Fed is out to buy $600 billion. By the way, I don’t think it’s going to end in June and they never said it was going to end in June. What they said was, we propose to buy $600 billion of treasury obligations between November and June, but they never said it was capped at $600 billion. They just said we’re going to buy about $75 billion a month for the next 6 months. I don’t think they will stop there. I view this as much more likely to be a trillion dollar plus program, not $600 billion.

HRN: How does the Federal Reserve’s purchase of U.S. Treasuries in the open market monetize U.S. government debt?

Jim Rickards: These things are pretty fungible. Dollars are totally fungible and Treasury securities are quasi fungible because it’s the same credit in the same currency. So, imagine you’re an institutional investor and you’re holding an off-the-run 7 year note with 5 years to maturity and the government is issuing a new 5 year note. Obviously, the primary dealers mediate this and are the interface between the Fed and the institutional investor. So, the Fed goes out and buys an off-the-run 7 year note from an insurance company, let’s say, and the insurance company replaces that in their portfolio by buying a new 5 year note. From the insurance company’s point of view, they got rid of a 5 year treasury and they bought a 5 year treasury, so nothing happened. From the Fed’s point of view, they bought the 5 year treasury with newly printed money and so there’s some intermediation and there’s multiple parties involved, but the net effect is exactly as if the Fed was monetizing the new debt.

HRN: Let’s get back to inflation. Can’t the Federal Reserve control inflation if prices start rising?

Jim Rickards: I think these processes are dynamically unstable and once you let the inflation genie out of the bottle, you don’t get 2% or 3%, you go straight to 10% and that’s what happened in the 1970’s. If you look at the late 60’s and early 70’s, inflation was 1% or 2% and then one year it pumped up to 3% and they said, oh my goodness, it’s 3%. After that, it went to 5%, then to 8%, then to 10% and then to 13%. In other words, between 1977 and 1981, in that five year period, cumulative inflation was 50%. The value of the dollar was cut in half over that very short 5-year period of time. So, that’s how it accelerates and gets out of control. I think that’s what’s going to happen again.

HRN: How much will prices go up in the U.S.?

Jim Rickards: Bernanke says 2%, but he actually wants something closer to 4%. I think what he’s going to find is that it goes very quickly to 8% or 9% or 10%, which is borderline hyperinflationary and that’s going to be a huge problem. It’s going to be a shock that the American people are not ready for.

HRN: What can the Federal Reserve do if price inflation starts to accelerate?

Jim Rickards: Well, Bernanke says, oh, don’t worry about high inflation because we have the ways and means of controlling that. If you take Bernanke at his word, which I don’t totally do, but if you do take Bernanke at his word and he says I want 2% and inflation goes to, let’s say, 3% or 4%, he’s saying, well, we can dial it back down to 2%. Well, how are you going to do that? One way is by raising interest rates, but are you really going to raise interest rates when unemployment is close to 10%? Bernanke says he can raise rates, and legally he can, but he’s not actually, politically or economically, going to be able to do it because he’ll be raising interest rates in the face of the greatest sustained period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. So, it’s just not going to be politically possible.

HRN: Couldn’t the Federal Reserve remove liquidity from financial markets to counter inflation?

Jim Rickards: There’s another problem with QE2, which is that the Fed is probably insolvent today if you applied some rigorous mark-to-market tests and that will become more apparent as this process goes forward. Let’s just say Bernanke gets what he wants, and, all of a sudden, inflation starts to creep up and he says; OK, now we have to put on the brakes. Well, how do you do that? The way you do it is by reversing QE. In other words, QE is creating money to buy bonds. The way to reverse that is to sell bonds into the market and take the money out. Well, the problem is you’re going to have massive mark-to-market losses on those bonds. First of all, there’s the Bear Sterns junk and, remember, QE1 was not treasury securities, it was mortgage backed securities. They’re not going to be able to liquidate the bonds without going broke.

HRN: How can the Federal Reserve go bankrupt?

Jim Rickards: The Fed is on its way to a $3 trillion balance sheet. Their capital, in round numbers, is about $60 billion. With $3 trillion on the balance sheet and $60 billion of capital, they’re leveraged 50 to 1. That’s worse than Long-Term Capital Management when they got in trouble in 1998. If you’re leveraged 50 to 1 and you have a 2% decline in assets, just 2%, and the stock market sometimes moves 2% in a single day, you just wiped out your capital. A 2% hair cut on $3 trillion is $60 billion and that takes your capital to zero and the Fed is broke.

HRN: Could the Federal Reserve’s primary dealers sell Treasuries to remove liquidity from the market and help keep inflation in check?

Jim Rickards: The primary dealers can’t create money through auctions or open market operations. The primary dealers can buy and sell securities but they’re doing it with money that already exists whereas when the Fed buys securities or sells securities they are creating or destroying money. The primary dealers can prop up the market in government securities, but they can’t create money the way that the Fed does or make money disappear the way the Fed does.

HRN: So, there’s nothing the Federal Reserve can do to control price inflation?

Jim Rickards: They’ve got to be looking down the road and saying, gee, we say we can get inflation under control, but the tools that we have to do that will basically be raising interest rates with 10% unemployment, which is not going to happen, or selling bonds and going broke, which is not going to happen. So, it’s all talk. The Fed won’t actually be able to keep inflation under control and it’s going to very quickly fly out of control.

HRN: Won’t rising prices make most Americans poorer?

Jim Rickards: The Fed doesn’t care about that. The Fed doesn’t care about people. They don’t care about workers. They don’t care about wages. They say they do, but the Fed only cares about banks.

HRN: Bernanke has been in the media, saying that inflation will stimulate the U.S. economy and help create jobs without causing prices to go up.

Jim Rickards: It’s propaganda. I had a discussion with former Fed governor, no reason to mention the name, who is a very well known economist, and what he said was that behind closed doors the Federal Open Market Committee spends about 10% of their time on policy and 90% of their time on communication. They very quickly arrive at what they’re going to do and then spend the vast majority of their time thinking about messaging and wordsmithing. Well, there’s a name for that. It’s called propaganda.

HRN: Thank you for sharing so many of your insights with us today.

Jim Rickards: It’s my pleasure.

After Words

Jim Rickards is one of the most astute intellectuals today in economics, financial markets and monetary systems, as well as an increasingly outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies. The debasement of the U.S. dollar—the world reserve currency—through QE2, and due to monetary expansion resulting from low interest rates, is exporting U.S. inflation abroad, disrupting economies in Asia, South America and elsewhere. In addition to putting upward pressure on food prices globally, with potentially disastrous consequences, inflation is a hidden tax on savings and wages and, as prices rise, the living standards of most Americans will decline. Currency wars, caused by the Federal Reserve’s policies, could lead to trade wars or, in the worst case, to economic and political chaos as has been seen in Tunisia and Egypt.