Willem Buiter called “Gold – a 6000 year bubble” – ft.com. The late and great Peter Bernstein
subtitled his book about gold “the History of an Obsession”. But much as I admire these two
great minds, such loaded phraseology implies there to be something irrational about owning
gold and I think thatÂ’s just plain wrong. The fact is that there is a fundamental need for a
medium of exchange. Early civilisations used pebbles or shells. Prisoners have used
cigarettes.
Having a medium of exchange makes life easier than under barter economy and societies
have always organised themselves around the best monetary standard they could find. Until
industrialisation of the paper printing process, that happened to be gold, which is small,
malleable, portable and with no tendency to tarnish. Crucially, it’s also relatively finite and this
particular characteristic (in combination with the others) can be very useful in environments
characterised by monetary mischief.
I view it primarily as insurance against such environments. ItÂ’s a lump of metal with no
cash flows and no earnings power. In a very real sense it’s not intrinsically worth anything. If
you buy it, you’re forgoing dividend or interest income and the gradual accumulation over time
of intrinsic value since a lump of cold, industrially useless metal can offer none of these things.
That forgone accumulation of wealth is like the insurance premium paid for a policy which will
pay out in the event of an extreme inflation event.
Is there anything else which will do that? Some argue that equities hedge against inflation
because they are a claim on real assets, but most of the great bear market troughs of the 20th
century occurred during inflationary periods. A more obvious inflation hedge is inflation linked
bonds, but governments can default on these too. More exotic insurance products like
sovereign CDSs, inflation caps, long-dated swaptions or upside yield curve volatility all have
their intuitive merits. But they all come with counterparty risk. Physical gold doesnÂ’t. Indeed,
during the “6000 year gold bubble” no one has defaulted on gold. It is the one insurance
policy which will pay out when you really need it to.
There is nothing mystical about gold and I don’t consider myself a gold bug. In fact, I’m not
sure I’d even classify gold as an ‘investmentÂ’ in the strictest sense of the word. Well chosen
equities (not indices) will act as wealth-compounding machines and are likely to make many
times the initial outlay in real terms over time. These are ‘investments’ because so long as the
economics of each business remain firm, you donÂ’t want to sell. As they say in the textbooks,
you ‘buy to hold.Â’ But gold isn’t like that. Like all commodities, it’s intrinsically speculative
because you only buy it to sell it in the future.
The reason I own gold is because I’m worried about the long-term solvency of developed
market governments. I know that Milton Friedman popularised the idea that inflation is “always
and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” but if you look back through time at inflationary
crises – from ancient Rome, to Ming China, to revolutionary France and America or to Weimar
Germany – you’ll find that uncontrolled inflations are caused by overleveraged governments
which resorted to printing as the easiest way to avoid explicit default (whereas inflation is
merely an implicit default). ItÂ’s all very well for economists to point out that the cure for
runaway inflation is simply a contraction of the money supply. It’s just that when you look at
inflationary episodes you find that such monetary contractions haven’t been politically
viable courses of action.
We spend much time thinking about what to buy and when to buy it, when in fact knowing when to sell is more important. The case for owning gold is clear enough.
Gold, like all other commodities, is inherently speculative. Unlike well chosen stocks which you buy to hold to take advantage of their wealth-compounding properties, you only ever buy commodities to sell later. With this in mind, when should you sell gold?
Some would say the time to sell is now. Gold just isn’t the misunderstood, widely shunned asset it was a few years ago. Isn’t the gold bull market now long in the tooth, with better opportunities to be found elsewhere?
Willem Buiter called Gold a 6000 year bubble ft.com. The late and great Peter Bernstein subtitled his book about gold “the History of an Obsession”. But much as I admire these two great minds, such loaded phraseology implies there to be something irrational about owning gold and I think that’s just plain wrong. The fact is that there is a fundamental need for a medium of exchange. Early civilisations used pebbles or shells. Prisoners have used cigarettes.
Having a medium of exchange makes life easier than under barter economy and societies have always organised themselves around the best monetary standard they could find. Until industrialisation of the paper printing process, that happened to be gold, which is small, malleable, portable and with no tendency to tarnish. Crucially, it’s also relatively finite and this particular characteristic (in combination with the others) can be very useful in environments characterised by monetary mischief.
I view it primarily as insurance against such environments. It’s a lump of metal with no cash flows and no earnings power. In a very real sense it’s not intrinsically worth anything. If you buy it, you’re forgoing dividend or interest income and the gradual accumulation over time of intrinsic value since a lump of cold, industrially useless metal can offer none of these things. That forgone accumulation of wealth is like the insurance premium paid for a policy which will pay out in the event of an extreme inflation event.
Is there anything else which will do that? Some argue that equities hedge against inflation
because they are a claim on real assets, but most of the great bear market troughs of the 20thcentury occurred during inflationary periods. A more obvious inflation hedge is inflation linked bonds, but governments can default on these too. More exotic insurance products like sovereign CDSs, inflation caps, long-dated swaptions or upside yield curve volatility all have their intuitive merits. But they all come with counterparty risk. Physical gold doesn’t. Indeed, during the “6000 year gold bubble” no one has defaulted on gold. It is the one insurance policy which will pay out when you really need it to.
There is nothing mystical about gold and I don’t consider myself a gold bug. In fact, I’m not sure I’d even classify gold as an investmentÂ’ in the strictest sense of the word. Well chosen equities (not indices) will act as wealth-compounding machines and are likely to make many times the initial outlay in real terms over time. These are investments because so long as the economics of each business remain firm, you don’t want to sell. As they say in the textbooks, you buy to hold. But gold isn’t like that. Like all commodities, it’s intrinsically speculative because you only buy it to sell it in the future.
The reason I own gold is because I’m worried about the long-term solvency of developed
market governments. I know that Milton Friedman popularised the idea that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon but if you look back through time at inflationary crises from ancient Rome, to Ming China, to revolutionary France and America or to Weimar Germany you’ll find that uncontrolled inflations are caused by overleveraged governments which resorted to printing as the easiest way to avoid explicit default (whereas inflation is merely an implicit default). It’s all very well for economists to point out that the cure for runaway inflation is simply a contraction of the money supply. It’s just that when you look at inflationary episodes you find that such monetary contractions haven’t been politically viable courses of action.
What causes the political winds to change? A government crisis. In 2008, Ireland came very close to going the way of Iceland. They had their crisis. And historians today still refer to the inflation fatigue” in Britain by the end of the 1970s. This was our crisis. So what we learn from these experiences and others like them is that a fiscal crisis is required to force a majority acceptance of the implications of an overleveraged government. But the political winds in countries with central banks are a long way from blowing in the direction of fiscal rectitude. And while it’s true that more people are at least talking about it, talk is very cheap and no one is yet close to walking the walk. Such steps remain politically unpopular because we haven’t had our crisis yet. Given the clear unsustainability of government finances and the explosive path government leverage is on, a government funding crisis is both inevitable and necessary. Dubai and Greece are merely the first claps of thunder in what is going to be a long emergency.
Eventually, there will be a crisis of such magnitude that the political winds change direction, and become blustering gales forcing us onto the course of fiscal sustainability. Until it does, the temptation to inflate will remain, as will economists with spurious mathematical rationalisations as to why such inflation will make everything OK (witness the IMF’s recent recommendation that inflation targets be raised to 4%). Until it does, the outlook will remain favorable for gold. But eventually, majority opinion will accept the painful contractionary medicine because it will have to. That will be the time to sell gold.
Extracted  from SOCIETE GENERAL Gross Asset Research Popular Delusions by Dylan Grice