
GATA Chairman Bill Murphy was interviewed this week by GoldSeek Radio's Chris Waltzek...listen here
In the last 15 years, there have been two generally acknowledged, easily quantifiable bubbles: NASDAQ's tech bubble in 1999, and the briefer Crude Oil bubble in 2008. (Many would say housing was also a major bubble, but doing so may prove erroneous. Extreme home value loss is limited to certain areas of the country, and is not nearly as conclusive as the tech stock and oil collapses.)
Two characteristics are consistently present in the formation of a bubble. The first is magnitude, and the second is velocity. Long-term advances in prices do not necessarily represent a bubble just because of the duration, and neither does volatility as long as it is within a reasonable range. However, when prices rise sharply in a short period of time, and then drop sharply in an equally short period of time, one can reasonably conclude a bubble formed, and then burst. In other words, when magnitude and velocity combine to cause extreme volatility, that market likely is in a bubble.
Market bubbles defined
This study seeks to define exactly the level of volatility that separates a bubble from a non-bubble. One effective method for quantifying price volatility is to compare the daily price performance of a market against its 200-day moving average......read on
In recent weeks gold and silver have broken through their multi-month consolidation levels, and investors are wondering where the precious metals are headed. On a short term basis both gold and silver are overbought and due for a correction that may retest the breakout levels of $1,250 on gold and $20 on silver.
$1,500 Gold and $30 Silver By 2011
On a longer term basis, gold is at an all time high and silver is at a 30 year high. These breakout levels were key because they removed any supply of sellers wanting to sell near their previous purchase prices. The result will be a vacuum in price discovery, because virtually any investor in gold and silver now has a profitable trade and the price will have to rise until enough of these investors decide to take gains. Projecting from the size of the consolidation in precious metals the next key level where sellers arise could be near $1,500 gold and $30 silver by 2011.
Gold and Silver Have MUCH Higher to Run
Gold has risen every year for 10 years in a row now, demonstrating a powerful bull market that began in 2000. Since gold bull markets tend to last 15 to 18 years, investors are wondering how much potential the precious metals have in them. Gold and silver have to move substantially higher to revert to their inflation adjusted highs. However further dollar devaluation could multiply the potential gains.
The above analyses are in keeping with the projections of 102 other prognosticators, the majority of whom see gold reaching a parabolic price peak of at least $5,000 (see here for the 102 individuals and their projections and here for comments on Jim Sinclair's $1 million dollar bet that gold will reach $1,650 by January, 2011), and silver going as high as $712 (see here for the rationale for such an extremely high price based on $10,000 gold and here for the reasoning behind James Turk's contention that silver is going to $400 by 2015 and gold to $8,000).
While most of these statistics use the 1980 highs in gold and silver as a proxy, there is much more potential for a greater move in precious metals now because currency and economic imbalances are not confined to the U.S. but are global. If the US dollar is devalued, it is likely that the Euro, Yen and other currencies would also be devalued. While the 1970's bull market in gold and silver was largely driven by U.S. buyers, a panic to buy precious metals within the next 5 years will be driven globally.
As I said in the opening paragraph, "gold is likely to exceed $5,000 and silver is likely to exceed $200 within the next 5 years. If silver reverts to its historical ratio of 16 to 1 with gold, then it could rise even higher."
Given what you have read above would you not agree that you should buy some (or more) gold and/or silver at the first sign of any temporary weakness in price? I certainly think so!
The "Experts" are making much of the nice rise in the DJIA this week. But I don't see anything to get excited about. For one thing, the Dow has been stuck between its BEV -20% & -30% lines for almost 11 months now. That is a long time for the DJIA to be stuck in a 10% trading range. This is especially so when we consider this is an election year, a time when politicians want happy voters. Nothing makes voters happier than a rising DJIA!
Since 1993, dividend yields have been below 3%, except during the 2008-09 crash when yields spiked up to 4.74%. But who was buying stocks in March 2009? People with more guts than me! The point of the small dividend since 1993 is that people have been buying stocks for capital gains, not income. But since last November, there haven't been any capital gains. Puts on indexes have been losers too. Look at the chart below. With capital gains in the stock market so hard to find, no wonder trading volume is so low.....read in full
"...hyperinflation is not an extension or amplification of inflation. Inflation and hyperinflation are two very distinct animals. They look the same -- because in both cases, the currency loses its purchasing power -- but they are not the same.
Inflation is when the economy overheats: It's when an economy's consumables (labor and commodities) are so in-demand because of economic growth, coupled with an expansionist credit environment, that the consumables rise in price. This forces all goods and services to rise in price as well, so that producers can keep up with costs. It is essentially a demand-driven phenomena.
Hyperinflation is the loss of faith in the currency. Prices rise in a hyperinflationary environment just like in an inflationary environment, but they rise not because people want more money for their labor or for commodities, but because people are trying to get out of the currency. It's not that they want more money -- they want less of the currency: So they will pay anything for a good which is not the currency."
Except for the part about hyperinflation encompassing a loss of faith in the currency, the above is almost completely wrong. In particular, economies don't "overheat", economic growth causes prices to fall rather than rise, and hyperinflation is very much an extension of inflation. The author of the article doesn't even mention money-supply growth. Trying to explain inflation or hyperinflation without reference to growth in the money supply is like trying to explain why the moon orbits the Earth without reference to gravity.
All historical episodes of hyperinflation that we know of -- and we know of many -- have been step-by-step processes set in motion by, and sustained by, increases in the supply of money. After the supply of money grows at a rapid rate for a period of at least a few years, some people conclude that the inflation will be endless. These people act today in anticipation of tomorrow's money-supply-induced price rises. As time goes by, more and more people come to the realisation that the inflation will most likely be endless and begin to act (meaning: buy stuff immediately) in anticipation of future price rises, which eventually leads to the situation where prices are rising much faster than the supply of money.
At this point it would still be possible for the central bank to clamp down on the inflationary trend by stopping, or even just slowing, the expansion of the money supply, because rapidly rising prices throughout the economy would result in a money shortage unless the supply of money were given a substantial boost. At the same time, however, the central bank could be under considerable political pressure to accelerate the monetary expansion given that doing otherwise would lead to extreme short-term economic pain. This, in effect, is what happened in Germany during the early-1920s: at every step along the multi-year path from inflation to hyperinflation to the complete collapse of the currency it was deemed by the central bank to be less economically damaging to maintain or accelerate the inflation than to suddenly bring it to an end.
The point we are trying to make is that hyperinflation doesn't just happen 'out of the blue' one day when nobody expects it. Instead, it requires persistently high money-supply growth and evolves over many years due to a gradual increase in the awareness of the population. It is part of a PROCESS and definitely is an extension of inflation, but most episodes of inflation don't lead to hyperinflation because the authorities stop the monetary expansion before it's too late.
Lastly, it should be noted that while most episodes of inflation don't extend to the point where the economy experiences hyperinflation, all paper currencies eventually get inflated to oblivion. The reason is that circumstances finally arise whereby the most politically expedient move is to risk hyperinflation by continuing the monetary inflation way beyond 'normal' limits. In this regard, today's paper currencies won't be exceptions.