Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Get the Morning Brief sent directly to your inbox every Monday to Friday by 6:30 a.m. ET. Subscribe
‘The Fed can’t print gold’
The economic response to the coronavirus has been unprecedented.
From record drops in consumer spending, to expectations of a record decline in GDP growth, and a never-before-seen explosion in support from fiscal and monetary authorities, we are in a truly unparalleled environment for investors.
And amid these newfound challenges, strategists at Bank of America Global Research think the case has strengthened for the oldest safe haven in the book: gold.
“As the ultimate store of value, gold prices have performed well during the past 15 months, posting a rally of over 10% since the Federal Reserve did a monetary policy U-turn in January 2019,” write strategists led by Michael Widmer.
“The size of major central bank balance sheets has been stable at around 25% of GDP for the last decade or so, just like the gold price,” the firm adds.
“As economic output contracts sharply, fiscal outlays surge, and central bank balance sheets double, fiat currencies could come under pressure. And investors will aim for gold. Hence, we mark-to-market our forecasts and now project an average gold price of $1,695/oz in 2020 and $2,063/oz in 2021… we have also decided to up our [18 month] gold target from $2,000 to $3,000/oz.” (Emphasis added.)
The case for the yellow metal from BofA is straightforward — investors seeking protection from an economic downturn and a targeted reflation of the economy via fiscal and monetary stimulus will turn to gold for safety.
Or as BofA writes: “The Fed can’t print gold.”
Now, the gold trade has had its ups and downs over the years, but proved resilient during a strong stock market run in 2019 and has weathered the coronavirus chaos quite well. Indeed, only long-dated U.S. Treasuries have kept up with gold as successful safe haven trades this year.
BofA notes that factors such as a strong US dollar, continued market volatility, and decreasing demand from emerging market buyers could also weigh on gold. A poll from Reuters published Monday indicates traders see gold trading lower on these concerns this year and next.
BofA also notes that a spread between the paper and physical contract widened in early April on concerns over global gold production and the inability for some buyers to take delivery. And while these spreads have narrowed in recent days, the blowout in oil seen this week is a reminder that physical settlement of commodities can in extremely rare instances cause chaos in the market.
DoubleLine CEO Jeffrey Gundlach tweeted Monday that he foresees a similar, but opposite, dynamic potentially playing out in gold — demands for physical delivery corresponding with no bullion available to deliver.Jeffrey Gundlach✔@TruthGundlach
I spoke about how physical gold is far better that “paper gold” for the opposite but related reason that tanked May WTI today. What if the “paper gold” vehicles wanted to take delivery of their futures and the counter party couldn’t deliver?2,847Twitter Ads info and privacy856 people are talking about this
In late 2019, we highlighted work from Goldman Sachs that indicated a preference for physical gold among investors seeking to stable stores of value for their wealth. In that note, Goldman strategists forecasted the gold price would rise to $1,600 by 2020. Of course, in December no strategists were baking a global recession into their forecasts for this year.
As of Tuesday, an ounce of gold was trading just below $1,700.
And in an environment where fiscal and monetary authorities around the world appear ready to do whatever it takes to get businesses and consumers back on their feet after a forced stoppage of economic activity, BofA writes that “a lot of risks could effectively be socialized, boosting the appeal of gold.”
So far, so good.
By Myles Udland, reporter and co-anchor of The Final Round. Follow him at @MylesUdlandStory continues
Inflation: merely a monetary phenomenon?
On 22 January 2015, Mario Draghi announced a considerable enlargement of the ECB’s public and private bond purchase
programme (QE) with the goal of anchoring inflation expectations in the medium term and reviving the economy, something that
was unimaginable a year ago. With this announcement, the ECB joined the rest of the central banks such as the Federal Reserve,
the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England that have been increasing their balance sheets by buying up assets for some time now.
A large amount of liquidity has been injected into each country’s economy through these expansionary monetary policies.
However, inflation has continued to fall steadily and is now starting to jeopardise the anchoring of inflation expectations in the
medium and long term. Given this unusual situation, some have even questioned one of the few laws in economics that had
seemed resilient, known internationally thanks to a famous phrase by the economist Milton Friedman:
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced
only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.
This claim that inflation is a monetary phenomenon is based on the quantity theory of money, according to which prices vary in
proportion to the money supply. This relationship is based on a mathematical identity,1
according to which the value of transactions
carried out in an economy (understood as nominal GDP) is equivalent to the amount of money circulating in that economy
(understood as the amount of money in an economy multiplied by the number of times this changes hands; i.e. the velocity of
money). If we assume that the velocity of money is constant, in an economy without economic growth the inflation rate equals the
rate of growth in money. Therefore, if money supply increases, there will be more money chasing the same goods, so prices will go
up. Similarly, if the rate of growth for economic activity and the quantity of money is the same, prices should remain constant.
Friedman’s statement has been backed by empirical evidence,
also showing a positive relationship between inflation and
growth in excess money supply (growth in money supply
above the real growth in GDP) for a large number of countries.
This relationship is strong and robust in the long term but, the
relationship between both variables may weaken temporarily
in the short term due to factors such as price rigidity and the
velocity of money not being constant. For example, a reduction
in the velocity of money in circulation would be compatible
with an increase in the money supply without putting pressure
on prices.
Based on the above, both the theory and empirical evidence
suggest that, if growth in the money supply is greater than the
actual growth in GDP, this should push up inflation in the
medium term. However, since the start of 2012, the relationship
between both variables seems to have weakened to the point
of almost disappearing. On the one hand, growth in money
supply has accelerated more than GDP growth while, on the
other, core inflation2
has continued to fall. Below we look at the main factors that lie behind this decoupling between monetary
aggregates and prices in the last few years.
In this respect, an analysis of the effectiveness of monetary policy and specifically how it affects monetary aggregates is essential.
In general terms, when a central bank offers liquidity to the banking system, either by offering long-term credit or by directly
purchasing some of its assets, the monetary base increases.3 There isno automatic rise in the money supply,4
however. Traditionally
banks would use the liquidity provided by central banks to increase the supply of credit 5
and movements in money supply were
therefore in line with those in the monetary base, ultimately leading to an increase in consumption and investment and thereby
pushing up prices.
However, the considerable increase in the monetary base occurring over the last few years has not led to a similar increase in the
money supply (see the table). The factors limiting the growth capacity for credit can be found both in its demand and supply.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
M2/GDP **
CPI
Notes: * Each dot represents the average inflation and growth in money supply above GDP
growth for advanced economies. ** M2 is a measurement of the money supply.
Source: ”la Caixa” Research, based on data from the IFS.
Long-term relationship between prices and money
supply by country *
Year-on-year change (%) (average 1984-2013)
- M x V = P x Y or dM + dV = dP + dY. Where M is money supply (dM are the variations in this variable), V is the velocity of money circulation, P are prices and Y is GDP
in real terms. - We have focused on core inflation to isolate the effect of falling oil prices over the last few months.
- Monetary base is understood as the amount of liquidity provided by central banks, either in the form of currency in circulation or bank reserves deposited with the
central bank. - The relationship between the monetary base and money supply is known as the money multiplier.
- Money supply is understood as the currency in circulation plus currency in its most liquid form; i.e. bank deposits.
39
www.lacaixaresearch.com febrUARY 2015 www.lacaixaresearch.com
DOSSIER: INFLATION EXPECTATIONS 02
Specifically, a significant part of demand was imm