Why is the price of gold not soaring?

Here’s why it should be.

Yesterday the Bank of Japan, (BOJ), announced unprecedented steps, (for them), aimed explicitly at the creation of inflation, with a stated target of 2 per cent in two years. The new boys at the BOJ helm, (who were carefully hand-picked to ensure they would do this), used their first meeting to push through a raft of measures which more than sated even the market’s craving for action. This was heady stuff for central bankers, (especially Japanese ones, who for years have been notorious for under-delivery); they will aim to double the money supply to Yen 270 trn, (roughly USD 3 trn), in two years, almost doubling the amount of monthly bond purchases and lengthening the maximum permissible maturity to include 40-year bonds, increased the pace at which they will buy Exchange Traded Funds and Real Estate Investment Trusts, and even decided to ditch, (temporarily at first), its so-called ‘banknote’ rule, under which its total bond purchases were hitherto limited to the amount of Yen in circulation.

Not surprisingly these measures caused the yen to dive on the foreign exchange markets and Japanese 10-year government bond yields fell below 0.5 per cent. Only in Japan would investors be happy to buy these bonds, with that yield, 0.5 per cent per annum, when the government and the central bank is intent upon creating inflation of at least 2 per cent per annum-only in Japan because over 90 per cent of Japanese bond issuance is snapped up by domestic investors-individuals, pension funds, life insurance companies, government entities.

Will this continue happily forever? That depends on the degree of "success" which the BOJ’s policies enjoy. Japan Inc. had certainly better hope so, with interest rate payments already accounting for more than a quarter of government spending-even with interest rates at 0.5 per cent and lower for shorter maturities!

This is where gold should come into the picture - how can the world’s third largest economy embark on such an explicit inflationary policy without investors rushing to secure an inflation hedge by acquiring the age-old comfort of gold? One explanation is simply inertia; the market has endured nearly two decades of deflation in Japan and will take time to get worried about inflation there, secondly it will take time for Japanese liquidity to find its way into the global economy, but most importantly, the Cypriot and the North Korean crises loom large in investors’ minds and the only challenger to gold as a safe-haven is the US Dollar-hence an unstable equilibrium has formed with regard to the price of gold expressed in US Dollars.

If you believe that the Cypriot crisis will ultimately fade from memory and, pray God, North Korea is playing its old game of sabre-rattling to extort more aid, then someday soon gold will have its day and now is it great time to buy.

Photograph: Getty Images

Chairman of  Saxo Capital Markets Board

An Honours Graduate from Oxford University, Nick Beecroft has over 30 years of international trading experience within the financial industry, including senior Global Markets roles at Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Citibank. Nick was a member of the Bank of England's Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee.

More of his work can be found here.

Getty
Show Hide image

To beat the Trump hype, we need a return to old-fashioned political virtues

If we want to resist the Trumpification of politics, what we need is restraint, duty and incorruptibility.

After the 1992 US presidential election, Alistair Cooke’s celebrated BBC radio series Letter from America struck a poignant note. Cooke described Bill Clinton’s worn jeans and checked wool shirt, contrasting them with George H W Bush’s buttoned-up Wasp manners and buttoned-down Ivy League shirts. Clinton’s style, Cooke argued, was a rebuke to a tired social and political establishment. His casualness was the new America.

Cooke, then 83, was honest enough to admit unease about this departure from the old, patrician modes and manners. “Along with the passing of George Bush,” he said, “we shall see, I fear, the passing of the blue blazer.” Cooke seemed right at the time. But don’t write off the blue blazer just yet. As ruling elites change, so does the appropriate counterpoint. To topple Bush’s stuffy golf club elites, Clinton picked up his saxophone, took off his tie and felt everyone’s pain. And now? The subtext of these turbulent months (the inevitable second question, prompted by “How do you beat Donald Trump?”) is: “What should ­tomorrow’s leaders, the leaders we crave, look and sound like?”

My conjecture is that, to beat Trump and his type – bling, shiny suits, dodgy deals – we should push towards centre stage an underestimated set of political virtues: restraint, duty and incorruptibility. If it weren’t for the gender associations, I would be tempted to call this quality gentlemanliness. Aside from personal virtue – signally lacking in the Clinton camp – how might decency inform public debate as it comes under attack from maverick showmen trained in the media circus? How can the middle ground regain its confidence?

First, level with the public. Maybe liberalism hasn’t failed so much as its messaging has failed. Instead of smashing the electorate over the head with the idea that everything is just great, make the case that not everything can be for the best in all possible worlds. As populists reach for empty slogans, a new space has opened up. Accept and exploit those asymmetries: more people are ready to hear uncomfortable truths than politicians imagine.

Kingsley Amis once argued that a writer’s voice should stay close to his speaking voice: not the same, but close. Adapting that idea, if politicians stayed closer in public debate to the truths that they articulate in casual conversation – some things are impossible; almost every policy creates a losing as well as a winning side; there really isn’t any money – they would be surprised how many people are ready to hear that not all problems can be evaporated into thin air. Stray too far from awkward truths and elections become about simple lies v tricksy lies.

Second, centrists do more harm than good when they rush to categorise dissenting opinion as not only wrong, but unacceptable. “Any suggestion that liberal values are not humanly universal,” as John Gray wrote in a recent NS essay, “will provoke spasms of righteous indignation.” Instead, we need to be more tolerant in our tolerance.

Third, stop pretending that everything desirable can be shoehorned into the “progressive” agenda. “I really care passionately about persevering with the common-sense middle ground and doing it quite well” is a problematic political sales pitch, but not for the reasons that are usually given. The gravest difficulty may come at the beginning, with the faux passion, rather than with the substance – public service and competence – underneath.

It is revealing that those closest to David Cameron expended so much energy trying to persuade us that he was not an updated version of Harold Macmillan. That is why the gay marriage reforms, though admirable, were accorded too much significance. Ah, Cameron was a natural crusader! But he paid a price for dressing up as a “radical” when greater challenges arrived. It weakened some of his strongest cards – calmness, perspective, proportion – just as politics was coarsening. Aren’t Tories supposed to understand the virtues of yesterday? In other words, as an electoral strategy to beat Trump (or Nigel Farage), I’d put up a Macmillan type over a Clinton type every time.

Fourth, cut ties with “messaging experts”. It’s a fraud. They teach that everything must be asserted with powerful conviction. Yet ideas unworthy of powerful conviction are best left shorn of them. The electorate has endured a communications version of crying wolf. As a result of the messaging game, when something genuinely important crops up, it sounds simply like the same old shtick.

Fifth, ditch the bogus quantification. Few things signal untrustworthiness more reliably than fake precision. Something shifted in me when George Osborne argued that Brexit would leave households £4,300 worse off. What, no decimal point? Voters understand uncertainty better than politicians imagine. Precise quantification used to sound professional. Now it sounds suspicious.

Finally, think about tone. Conventional wisdom holds that the mainstream must fight the Trumpian revolution on its own terms: a simple solution, memorably expressed, a guiding vision for the country or the world. If anyone has a good one to hand, I’m all for it. But what if – after decades of ­sophisticated argument and counterargument, as politics has solved the easy problems while parking the difficult or insoluble ones – we have reached a state of such evolved equilibrium that no such easy answer can exist?

Pretending otherwise is no longer a point of difference. It takes you towards the lowest common denominator. As Trump has shown, that is well-occupied territory. Perhaps wooing the angry mob is not the solution. Instead, the admirable and successful politician of the future will have to win back the support of moderate, sensible but disillusioned voters. 

Ed Smith is a journalist and author, most recently of Luck. He is a former professional cricketer and played for both Middlesex and England.

This article first appeared in the 01 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Age of outrage