Gold: Golden for the Wrong Reason

One of gold's most prominent bulls, John Paulson, the asset manager who made more than $1 billion betting on the housing downturn, is tarnished.

Bloomberg reported that Paulson's $900 million gold fund is down 26% through the beginning of March, after falling 25% last year. The fund has been hurt by the price of gold falling to around $1,600 off its all-time high of more than $1,900, which it hit in Sept. 2011. Paulson told clients that "his Gold Fund would beat his other strategies over five years because the metal was the best hedge against inflation and currency debasement as countries pump money into their economies."

Paulson echoes comments from Ray Dalio, the man behind the $140 billion hedge fund Bridgewater Associates. Dalio told Barron's in March 2011, "Currency devaluations are good for stocks, good for commodities, and good for gold."

The price of gold has fallen off those highs and, so best we can tell, another economic crisis isn't happening soon, meaning investors are less likely to flock toward the most prominent bearish investment. But gold's effectiveness as just that -- protection against the worst economic and financial distress -- is also under attack.

History
One of the most common arguments to invest in gold is inflation. Credit Suisse Senior Advisor Robert Parker told CNBC last month, "To get back into a bull market on gold we need inflation." Although there are different ways to interpret gold as an "inflation hedge," the simplest version is that changes in the consumer price index should drive changes in the price of gold: if prices (in dollars) rise 10%, then the price of gold should rise 10% as well, giving gold a constant purchasing power.

The historical record, however, suggests little relationship between the gold price and inflation. In a recent paper titled "The Golden Dilemma," Claude Erb and Campbell Harvey found that "over 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 year investment horizons the variation in the nominal and real returns of gold has not been driven by realized inflation."

Looking at the price of gold and the consumer price index since 1975, when private ownership and trade of gold was reallowed in the U.S., they find that in March 2012 (when they last did the calculations), the price of gold "should" have been $780 an ounce, but the actual price was closer to $1,600. (It was right around $1,600 this morning.)

When it comes to whether gold can hedge unexpected inflation, the authors find "effectively no correlation" between the real price of gold and future inflation; any relationship is driven by 1980, when the real price of gold more than doubled and hit its all-time peak of around $2,440 (2013 dollars) and inflation was up above 12%.

After 1980, gold sharply declines and then starts moving sideways until 2003, while average annual inflation was around 4%. Even for 10-year periods, gold did little to nothing to hedge inflation, expected or unexpected.

Gold as a hedge, gold as a safe haven
What about as a currency hedge? Dalio and Paulson both reference quantitative easing and money printing as reasons to invest in gold, but, again, the historical record doesn't give much reason to hold gold.

Harvey and Erb found that the price of gold tends to move together in different countries and in different currencies: For eight major currencies, gold was high in the early 1980s, low in the 1990s, and high right now. And while they find a slight relationship between declines in the dollar exchange rate across eight major currencies, they're on the order of 1.5% in dollar depreciation against a given major currency for every 10% increase in the price of gold -- far from the strong connection you'd expect in a true hedge against a precipitous fall in the dollar.

Another popular argument for having some exposure to gold is that it is a safe haven or hedge against extreme financial and economic stress. This argument is most plausible based on recent experience -- from Sept. 2007 to Sept. 2011, the price of gold rose from $743 to more than $1,940.

But this is just one observation. The price of gold declined during the Asian financial crisis and subsequent market drop in Oct. 1997. Following the Russian debt default, gold declined again, and gold went up just $9 per ounce during the 2001 recession.

Harvey and Erb studied the monthly total returns of the S&P 500 and gold and found that 17% of monthly stock market negative returns were matched by negative gold returns. In the last year, gold has declined 4.8% while the S&P is up 13.5%. Just because gold is poorly correlated with U.S. equities does not make it a safe haven.

The roundabout case for purchasing gold, part 1
If Paulson and other gold bulls are wrong about why to own gold and gold-related assets, could gold still rise in the long run? Yes, for two reasons:

  1. If emerging market central banks decide to increase their gold holdings to the levels of their developed market counterparts.
  2. If it becomes conventional wisdom that the typical "market portfolio" should have a target gold allocation.

Central banks' net purchases of gold in 2012 were $29 billion, compared to $23 billion in 2011. Central banks' net purchases only turned positive in 2010. Rich countries and the IMF hold an overwhelming portion of existing central bank reserves (the U.S. has more than 8,100 tons, compared to just over 2,600 tons for Brazil, India, Russia, and China combined), but developing and middle-income nations make up a huge portion of new purchases.

For years, gold had been piling up in rich countries' central bank reserves as a leftover form the gold standard and Bretton Woods. They responded by managing the sale of their reserve gold so that the price would not fall too quickly. Switzerland and France, for example, have significantly decreased their gold holdings while Russia, China, and India have substantially added to theirs.

If this pattern -- rich-country gold reserves holding steady or falling slightly and developing countries' reserves rapidly expanding -- continues, then price-insensitive central banks might drive up the price of gold, or at least put a floor on it, for reasons that have nothing to do with the traditional investment rationale.

"As long as some central banks are insensitive to the real price they pay for gold, the possible move into gold could drive the real price of gold much higher," write Harvey and Erb.

The roundabout case for purchasing gold, part 2
According to the World Gold Council, in 2012 investors made up 36% ($82 billion out of $236 billion) of world gold purchases, the rest coming from jewelry (44%), technology (8%), and central bank purchases (12%).

Over the past decade, gold investors have not acted like typical asset buyers: They tend to buy more gold when the price is higher. Harvey and Erb have found that between 2001 and 2011, gold has had positive price elasticity for investors -- for every 10% the price has gone up, investor demand has increased 9.8%.

It seems like investors around the world are chasing momentum, believing that as the price of gold starts to go up, it will continue to do so. Which leads to the second reason the price of gold might stay elevated or continue to rise: It's underowned.

Dalio told Barron's, "If you ask any central bank, any sovereign wealth fund, any individual what percentage of their portfolio is in gold in relationship to financial assets, you'll find it to be a very small percentage."

If Dalio, one of the world's most successful investors, gets other asset managers to imitate him, gold could become a standard part of the market portfolio. Basic finance theory suggests that an investor wants to hold a mix of assets that reflects the market as a whole. So if the sum total of financial assets is 54% stocks and 46% bonds, the "market portfolio" is 54/46.

According to Harvey and Erb, using World Gold Council data, the actual mix right now is more like 53% stocks/45% bonds/2% gold, but it is likely that very few investors own that mix of assets.

If pension funds and endowments decide to pursue an asset mix that's more weighted toward gold, they will start buying up a limited amount of gold available to investors. This "would probably result in much higher nominal gold prices," because momentum-riding gold investors would chase the higher prices and price-insensitive central banks would keep on buying, argue Harvey and Erb.

That's because the gold supply hasn't been able to keep up with demand -- thus the high prices. In 2001, gold mine production was 2,600 metric tons. In 2012, it was 2,800, leading to the price going up six times (scraping and recycling round out the gold supply). There's just not much more mining companies can do to get gold out of the ground.

Gold doesn't do what it's supposed to -- it's really just shiny metal. But if central banks keep on buying it and investors believe in it, it might start to act like something more valuable. But that's only in the long run; in the short run, John Paulson's gold fund could still be dead.

For more on gold, see:

Matthew Zeitlin does not own shares of any companies mentioned.


Read/Post Comments (6) | Recommend This Article (7)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2013, at 10:49 AM, AnsgarJohn wrote:

    Here is Buffett calling the top of the gold bubble at $1750 per ounce at the beginning of 2012, for those who have not read it yet:

    "Today the world's gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At $1,750 per ounce -- gold's price as I write this -- its value would be about $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

    Let's now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world's most profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B?

    Beyond the staggering valuation given the existing stock of gold, current prices make today's annual production of gold command about $160 billion. Buyers -- whether jewelry and industrial users, frightened individuals, or speculators -- must continually absorb this additional supply to merely maintain an equilibrium at present prices.

    A century from now the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops -- and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the currency may be. Exxon Mobil (XOM) will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). The 170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

    Admittedly, when people a century from now are fearful, it's likely many will still rush to gold. I'm confident, however, that the $9.6 trillion current valuation of pile A will compound over the century at a rate far inferior to that achieved by pile B.

    Our first two categories enjoy maximum popularity at peaks of fear: Terror over economic collapse drives individuals to currency-based assets, most particularly U.S. obligations, and fear of currency collapse fosters movement to sterile assets such as gold. We heard "cash is king" in late 2008, just when cash should have been deployed rather than held. Similarly, we heard "cash is trash" in the early 1980s just when fixed-dollar investments were at their most attractive level in memory. On those occasions, investors who required a supportive crowd paid dearly for that comfort."

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Louebsch wrote:

    It all depends on what you want out of the investment. If you are looking to make money and beat the market then gold is a terrible investment. If you are looking for a place to store value and beat inflation every year, then gold is the only investment.

    Warren Buffet is actually right and wrong at the same time. Why would you buy gold when you could buy farmland, exxon, or any other stock? Any other stock will make more money than gold. However, the risk to buy those things is a lot higher than buying gold. farmland can go bad or there could be a long term drought, exxon could go belly up if electric cars become mainstream, and the US dollar could collapse. Meanwhile gold will still be gold and worth even more if those things were to actually ever happen.

    Buy gold as an insurance policy. If something in your family goes horribly wrong you can cash your gold in to pay for expenses. It has been a store of value for all of mankind. It will continue that way forever because of the utility of gold. Gold doesn't rust and it's easily formed into any shape. On top of that, people think it looks pretty.

    It all depends on what you are trying to do with your money. Gold is a terrible investment, but a great way to beat inflation when trying to maintain your nest egg/emergency fund.

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2013, at 11:41 AM, StopPrintinMoney wrote:

    Buffett is a political prostitute. He has his reasons to say certain things.

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2013, at 12:09 PM, TMFGortok wrote:

    If Gold isn't valuable, then why did the US government in the form of Franklin Delano Roosevelt go to great lengths to confiscate it from US citizens in the 30s?

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2013, at 7:09 PM, dcollinson wrote:

    Gold is money, everything else is credit. Sometimes speculative investments will beat gold and sometimes they will lose against gold.

  • Report this Comment On March 24, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Awebb30 wrote:

    With a user name of "StopPrintinMoney" I'd say your comment is gigantically hypocritical.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2319456, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/20/2014 11:57:19 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement