By Doug Hornig, Casey Research

Lovers of liberty have seemingly had a good bit to celebrate recently.

First, there was an unprecedented outpouring of negative public sentiment about the Congressional bills SOPA (House) and PIPA (Senate); they are legislation that would have thrown a large governmental monkey wrench into the relatively smooth-running cogs of the Internet. Millions of Americans signed online petitions against the bills after seeing websites’ various protests. Google shrouded its search page in black; Wikipedia and Reddit went dark entirely (although Wikipedia could be accessed if one read the information available via clicking the sole link on its protest page); Facebook and Twitter urged users to contact their representatives; and many other core Internet businesses also raised their voices in opposition.

Such was the outpouring of dissent that even Washington, D.C. had to listen. The bills, which a week earlier had seem assured of swift passage, suddenly turned to poison. Supporters, forced to concede that the public really was pissed off this time, fled. Leadership in both houses tabled the legislation, pending further review and revision.

But before we get too self-congratulatory, however, it’s wise to note that this victory dish is probably best enjoyed with a serving of caution. As Casey Extraordinary Technology editor Alex Daley summed up the situation for us here at Casey Research: “Be sure this will come back again, likely post-election, and snuck through as part of a bigger package. It arrests power from the judiciary, and the legislature likes nothing more than to thumb its nose at those ridiculous judges and all their due process this and Constitution that. It will eventually pass, just not like this.” We can’t now go to sleep on this one.

Second, the Supreme Court recently ruled 9-0 that police may not attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car without a search warrant. This is a landmark decision to be sure, but one that was carefully circumscribed by the justices. The placing of the device constituted a physical intrusion on the suspect, they wrote, and thus was impermissible. Left unruled upon was the larger question of tracking someone’s movements when there was no physical violation, as would be the case when, say, police access signals from a GPS-enabled smartphone. Though it wasn’t directly addressed, the concurring opinions strongly suggest that the justices might be more sharply divided on that issue.

A lapse of vigilance in these matters would be a mistake.

This is probably a good time to review how individual freedom fared over the past year vis à vis the technology of surveillance in general.

But before I do, I need to make a couple of things clear.

Where We Stand

We are not technophobes at Casey Research. We don’t think that it would be a good thing to retreat to the woods and live out our days spearing game and cooking it over fires. Quite the contrary. We’re technophiles who appreciate what tech has done to improve human living conditions, and we believe that it holds the key to the solution of many, if not all, of our present problems. We like to err on the side of hope.

In addition, we understand that society has a powerful interest in maintaining a certain level of order. It’s intolerable that personal disputes should be settled by gun battles in the streets or that serious infringements on the rights of others – whether it be physical crimes such as robbery, rape, or murder, or non-physical ones like fraud – should be ignored. The most ardent libertarian would generally agree that a government ought to have the authority to prevent or punish the aggression of one individual upon another and to enforce contracts freely entered into. Thus tradeoffs with our basic right to do as we see fit must be made if man’s worst impulses are to be deterred.

That said, the tricky part is deciding where to draw the line between reasonable and overzealous laws and enforcements. Surveillance technology is at the center of this debate. It’s good and getting ever better. Even the most law-abiding of citizens have been subjected to steadily increasing levels of governmental – as well as private sector – watchfulness over their daily lives. That has occurred with no indication that the public is yet prepared to say, “Enough. This is where we draw that line in the sand.”

The past year was no exception. I won’t go into developments I’ve already written about, such as the growth of the TSA’s VIPR operations, last summer’s lemonade-stand busts, the ghastly E-Verify proposal , and the Fed’s Social Listening Program. But the sad truth is that there are plenty more from which to choose. Space considerations permit a close examination of only a few.

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s…

… a drone.

Remote-controlled drone aircraft, like the famed Predator, have become a staple of the nightly news. We see them launching missiles against terrorists, conducting spy missions over Pakistan, patrolling the borders looking for drug smugglers and alien infiltrators. Now we’re going to have to get used to seeing them in the skies over, well, all of us.

Yes, those same Predator drones are being used increasingly by local law enforcement in the US.

That was unknown to most Americans before late last year, when the great North Dakota cattle-rustling incident hit the press. It seems that back in June, six neighbors’ cows had the misfortune to wander onto a 3,000-acre farm in eastern North Dakota owned by the Brossart family, whose members allegedly belong to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, an anti-government group that the FBI considers extremist and violent.

When the sheriff attempted to reclaim the cows, the family refused to give them up, ordering him off its property at gunpoint. A 16-hour standoff ensued, with the sheriff requesting the usual reinforcements: state highway patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, and deputy sheriffs from three other counties. But he also called nearby Grand Forks Air Force Base and asked for help from a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone, normally used to secure the Canadian border for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Long story short, the drone silently surveilled the farm from two miles up, relaying information from its sophisticated sensors as to what the Brossarts were doing. When the surveillance showed that the family members had put their weapons down (yes, it can see that well at that distance), the authorities moved in, neutralizing the Brossarts and making the first known, drone-assisted arrests of US citizens.

Law enforcement was pleased, perhaps rightly so. No blood was spilled. Another Ruby Ridge was avoided. The cows – street value $6,000, but now rather a bit more costly – were recovered.

But that was just the beginning. Local North Dakota police say they have used the Grand Forks Predators to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have also used Predators for domestic investigations, officials admit. And Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, says that Predators are flown “in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis.” [emphasis mine]

Who knew?

Robert Prechter discusses what’s backing your dollars

In this video clip, taken from Robert Prechter’s interview with The Mind of Money, Prechter and host Douglass Lodmell discuss “real” money vs the FIAT money system, and what is backing your dollars under our current system. Enjoy this 4-minute clip and then watch Prechter’s full 45-minute interview here >>

---

Watch the full 45-minute interview FREE Get even more valuable insights as Mind of Money host Douglass Lodmell interviews Elliott Wave International’s President, Robert Prechter, about how to keep your money safe, the deflation versus inflation debate, and many more topics that are critical to your financial future. Start watching the free 45-minute interview now >>

By Andrey Dashkov, Casey Research

In last week’s Metals, Mining, and Money from Casey Research, Jeff Clark estimated that given the magnitude of the correction that started last September, it may take until May 2012 for gold to reach a new high. Let’s take a look at how long it may take for silver to rebound.

It’s a commonly known fact that silver is more volatile than gold. Already in this decade, silver has risen by a factor of 12 from its ten-year low ($48.70 vs. $4.07), while gold has seen about a sevenfold climb ($255.95 vs. $1,895).

This volatility – as you’ll see in a minute – holds for corrections as well. On average, silver’s retreats have been deeper and longer than gold’s. The three big gold corrections we looked at last week averaged 22.8%. Take a look at the three biggest for silver, along with how long it’s taken to recover and establish new highs.

(Click on image to enlarge)

The three biggest silver corrections in the current bull market average to 42.1%.

Our recent correction is the second biggest on record since 2001, but what really makes it stand out is the duration. The 2004 and 2006 declines took only five and four weeks respectively to reach their low points. And it was 31 weeks after the crash of 2008 that silver bottomed. Our current decline, measured from the peak reached on April 28, 2011 to its December 29, 2011 low, spans 35 weeks… quite the determined downtrend.

It also takes silver longer to recover than gold: gold’s three biggest corrections required an average of 57 weeks and 6 days to regain their old highs, while it’s taken silver’s three biggest falls an average of 98 weeks and 4 days to catch up.

So how long will it take to recover from the 2011 slump? We don’t know the future, of course, but the current correction is close to the average of the three in the chart, so let’s apply the average recovery time to our current situation. The average 42.1% correction took 98 weeks and 4 days to recover; using the same ratio, a 46.3% correction would take 108 weeks and 3 days. Counting from the previous peak of April 28, 2011, we wouldn’t break the $48.70 high until May 26, 2013 (based on London PM Fix prices).

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that silver will take longer to return to its old high than what we found with gold in last week’s article. Why? Half of silver’s use is industrial, so a weak economy can drag down its demand. We certainly saw that in 2008.

And an exact date is pure conjecture, of course, and ignores fundamental factors that directly influence the price. 2011 is not 2008. In fact, we’ve already seen an interesting shift in investment activity in both gold and silver markets. The Silver Institute pointed out in a recent market report that “investor activity” was the biggest contributing factor to both last April’s rally as well as September’s selloff. Meanwhile, demand for physical metal has not only held firm but was projected by GFMS to reach a new record high in 2011.

Investment demand is rooted in the metal’s monetary characteristics. It’s not a stretch to say that we expect silver to regain its currency appeal soon, given the amount of worldwide fiat currency destruction. This will be perhaps the strongest catalyst for prices going forward. We wouldn’t want to be without any silver.

If there’s anything that sticks out from this bird’s-eye view of the past ten years of data, it’s that corrections are normal. And just as obvious is the fact that corrections end.

As with gold, the silver bull market is far from over, regardless of any weakness we may see in the near term. Don’t be the impatient investor who gives up too early. And trying to time the market for a short-term profit shouldn’t be the strategy in the midst of a long-term bull market. Instead, keep silver’s fundamentals in mind: its industrial uses are growing and, like gold, silver is money.

That said, we believe that the window for buying silver at $30 won’t be open for too long. The profit you someday realize from silver will be made buying now, when the price is low.

[Precious metals and precious metal stocks can be a solid way to store wealth, but only if you invest wisely. Don't let yourself be robbed.]

By Jeff Clark, Casey Research

Some investors are frustrated and a few are worried that gold seems stuck in a rut. This stall in price has happened before, of course, but since 2001 it’s always eventually powered to a new high. Unless one thinks the gold bull market is over, it’s natural to wonder how long might we have to wait before seeing another new high.

Absent some sort of global shock that sparks another rush into gold (easily possible in today’s climate), I think the answer may lie in examining the size and length of past corrections and how long it took gold to reach new highs afterward.

It makes sense that big corrections would take longer to reach new highs than small ones, but I wanted to confirm that assumption with the data. I also wanted to determine if there were any patterns in past recoveries that would give us some clues that we can apply to today.

Gold set a record on September 5 at $1,895 an ounce (London PM Fix) and to date has fallen as low as $1,531 (December 29), a decline of 19.2%. In order to determine how long it might take to breach $1,895 again, I measured how long it took new highs to be mounted after big corrections in the past.

The following chart details three large corrections since 2001, and calculates how many weeks it took the gold price to a) breach the old high, and b) stay above that level.

>

As you can see, it took a significant amount of time for gold to forge new highs after big selloffs. And yes, the bigger the correction, the longer it took.

In 2006, after a total fall of 22.6%, it took a year and four months for gold to surpass its old high. After the 2008 meltdown, it was a year and six months later before gold hit a new record.

Our recent correction more closely resembles the one in 2003. After a 16.2% drop, gold matched the old high seven months later. It took another two months to stay above it.

So when do we reach a new high in the gold price?

Let’s apply the same ratio from the 2003 correction and recovery: If it took 29 weeks and four days to reach a new high after a 16.2% correction, a 19.2% pullback would take 35 weeks and 0 days. That works out to Monday, May 7, 2012.

An exact date is pure conjecture, of course. On one hand, gold could drop below the $1,531 low if the need for cash and liquidity forces large investors to resume selling. On the other hand, Europe and/or the US could resume money printing on a large scale and send gold soaring overnight. The point of the data is that it signals we shouldn’t be too surprised if we don’t hit $1,900 for another four months yet. And if it takes another two months or so to stay above it.

Think that’s too long? There are some important reasons to not let it discourage you…

Once gold breaches its old high, you’ll probably never be able to buy it at current prices again.

That’s a rather obvious statement, but let it sink in. Buying now at $1,600 and then watching the price fall to, say, $1,500, wouldn’t be fun – but it’ll probably hit $2,000 or higher before the year’s over, never to visit the $1,600s again this cycle. If that turns out to be correct, the next four months will be the very last time you can buy at these levels. You’ll have to pay a higher price from then on.

Look at it this way: If the “rebound ratio” is similar to the one in 2003, you have four months and counting to buy whatever gold you want before it’s no longer on sale. It’s entirely possible that by this time next year you will never again be able to buy gold for less than $2,000 an ounce – unless maybe it’s in “new dollars” or some other currency that circulates with fewer zeros on the notes.

The data can also help you ignore the noise about gold’s bull market being over and other nonsense spewed from mainstream media types. If gold doesn’t hit $1,900 until May, you’ll know this is simply normal price behavior and that they’re overlooking basic patterns in the data. And when September rolls around – seasonally the strongest month of the year for gold – and the price is climbing relentlessly and they’re caught off guard by it, you’ll already be positioned.

Regardless of the date, we’re confident that a new high in the gold price will come at some point, because many major currencies are unsound and overburdened with debt – and they’re all fiat and subject to government tinkering and mismanagement. Indeed, the ultimate high could be frighteningly higher than current levels. As such, we suggest taking advantage of prices that won’t be available indefinitely.

After all, you don’t want to be left without enough of nature’s cure for man’s monetary ills.

[Traditional savings accounts simply do not cut it in today's economic environment – government-promoted robbery means they often lose money overall. Learn how you can protect your assets –and even get ahead.]

There is an old story about a rich gentleman who was walking down the street one day when he comes upon a homeless man. The rich man felt pity for the man and decided to help him. He asked the homeless man how much he collected in a good day. The homeless man replied $50.  The rich man told the homeless man that since he walked that way to work every day, if the homeless man were there on that street corner at 8:00 AM he would give him $50. And so that is what happened. Naturally the homeless man was happy to get the money. He no longer had to stand on the corner all day to get his $50.  This went on for  quite a while, every day the rich man would give the homeless man $50. But one day the rich man became ill and could not go to work and the homeless man did not have his $50 for the day. The next day when he arrived the homeless man demanded $100. since he hadn’t received his $50 from the day before. After all he was there at the appointed time it wasn’t his fault the rich man was sick. The rich man refused saying, he hadn’t been able to work so he didn’t earn any money the day before either…

The homeless man became angry and hit the rich man and took $100 from him.

The rich man called the homeless man ungrateful and decided walked to work a different way from then on.

History tells us that once a subsidy is instituted there will be riots if you try to remove them. Once people become used to getting something they feel entitled to it. If you try to stop the “entitlements” people become angry and riots ensue. We saw this in Greece and more recently in Nigeria. And it may become more widespread as governments try to cut back on expenses.  In the following article our friends at Casey Research shed some additional light on the subject.

Tim McMahon~ editor

The Telling Tale of Nigeria’s Fuel-Subsidy Riots

The series of events that just transpired in Nigeria makes for a familiar tale – and a telling lesson. The tale tells of a poor, developing nation endowed with oil riches that, on the advice of international economists, tries to eliminate gas subsidies. The lesson is that the populations of oil-producing nations will inevitably erupt in rage against any such notions.

Nigeria is the biggest oil producer in Africa, pumping out 2.2 million barrels of crude oil a day to sit 10^th in the global crude-production standings. But the average Nigerian gets little benefit from his country’s oil riches. There is an enormous gap between rich and poor in Nigeria, mostly because 80% of the economic benefits from producing all that oil flow to just 1% of the population. Politicians in the country’s infamously corrupt government have pocketed billions in oil profits, while three-fourths of Nigeria’s 160 million people live on about a dollar a day.

For the poor, a fuel subsidy provides the direct benefits of cheap gas plus an important indirect benefit: a small sense of ownership in a national resource. That statement is true from Venezuela to Nigeria, from Indonesia to Ukraine. And if ever a politician – undoubtedly a member of that elite group who has felt the benefits of a thriving domestic oil industry – tries to take those benefits away, there will be hell to pay.

Nigerians have been enjoying subsidized fuel since 1973. Subsidized gasoline not only reduces transportation costs, it also lowers food costs and fuels the millions of small generators that provide homes and shops with power in a nation with a failed power grid.

The subsidy was eliminated on January 1. Within a week fuel prices had more than doubled, shooting up from $1.70 a gallon to at least $3.50. Demonstrations against the dramatic price increase soon turned into riots. By January 8, Nigeria’s labor unions had launched an indefinite, nationwide strike in protest. Then police shot three people dead and wounded 24 others while dispersing protestors in the commercial hub of Lagos. The next day the strike gained momentum, with banks, gas stations, and airports closed down. Oil workers did not join the strike, though they threatened to do so, immediately adding a premium to the Brent benchmark price of oil.

On January 16, President Jonathon reduced the subsidy cuts in a terse announcement, saying he recognized that people were rightfully angry about the suddenness of the change but adding that “other interests beyond the implementation of the deregulation policy have hijacked the protests.” In response, the Nigeria Labor Congress and Trade Union Congress told workers to return to work. It seems the crisis has abated.

Subsidies will now reduce the price of gas to about US$2.27 a gallon, still more than 50¢ a gallon higher than it was 16 days earlier. With fuel prices still elevated and the government having deployed troops into the streets to quell what many viewed as valid demonstrations in a young democracy with a sensitive history of military coups, many Nigerians are not appeased. And President Jonathon insinuated that the partial subsidies reintroduced on Monday are temporary and will be phased out in perhaps April, at which point the riots could well start again.

An Economic Idea Lacking in Social Graces

The government of Nigeria spends about $8 billion a year on fuel subsidies. Getting rid of this financial burden would be an “important first step” in stabilizing the country’s finances, according to a 2009 International Monetary Fund report. The IMF and other global financial institutions are opposed to fuel subsidies in general because the biggest benefits do not go to the poor, but to the owners of large cars and big generators.

To look only at the absolute size of the benefit, however, misses a major point. For the poor, the fraction of their income that goes to pay for fuel is much greater than it is for those who own the big cars and generators. As such, it’s the poor who feel the elimination of subsidies the most, and it was the poor who rioted in Lagos.

Of course, erasing an $8-billion drain from Nigeria’s balance sheet would allow the government to spend money on badly needed public projects, and that is precisely how the government explained its move. But to the poor – whether rural or urban – the subsidy is one of the only benefits they glean from their nation’s strategic oil wealth. Corruption has stolen most of the other benefits: Nigeria’s roads are cratered with potholes; many live without access to clean drinking water; and electricity is unreliable where access to the grid even exists. Why should they believe the money the government would save by not subsidizing fuel would actually pay for infrastructure, when so much of Nigeria’s wealth simply disappears down the black hole of corruption?

More generally, taking away ingrained fuel subsidies from a developing country is like taking a crutch away from a cripple. After years of subsidies, Nigerians are completely reliant on cheap gasoline, from nationwide economic systems all the way down to personal needs. Even if taking away the crutch is the only way to force a patient to use his injured leg, it is nevertheless going to make him hopping mad (pun intended) because it will hurt like hell.

Don’t blame Nigeria for trying: failed attempts to remove fuel subsidies are written in the histories of many oil-producing nations. In Bolivia, protestors burned photos of President Evo Morales and vandalized government buildings in late 2010 after he tried to cut fuel subsidies; Mr. Morales backed down within days. In 1989, Venezuelans incited days of riots in which hundreds of people died, to protest a rise in fuel prices. Now, even though he has openly criticized his country’s subsidy program, President Hugo Chavez presides over one of the most generous fuel subsidies in the world.

The examples go on. In Jordan, widespread demonstrations forced the government to rescind its proposal to eliminate fuel subsidies. In Indonesia, a 30% increase in fuel prices led to bloody riots, even though the government sweetened the shift with direct cash-support programs for the poor. Such tactics can work: Iran has eliminated its fuel subsidies but cushioned the blow with cash payments of roughly $45 a month. Other Middle Eastern countries stuck paying fuel subsidies they can barely afford, such as Egypt, are looking at Iran’s plan as a model.

Nigeria’s Struggles Run Deep

Most situations are more complicated than they first appear, and such is certainly the case with Nigeria’s fuel subsidy riots. The country is also facing a surge in religious violence: at least 85 people have been killed in bomb and gun attacks since Christmas Day. An Islamic group named Boko Haram is behind the attacks and is targeting the country’s Christians, who primarily live in the north. The group’s name translated from the Hausa language means “Western education is a sin.”

These attacks are threatening to fracture the country’s sensitive north-south, Muslin-Christian divide, a religious fault line that has sparked sectarian violence responsible for killing hundreds of thousands in the past. While sectarian stresses rise, the fuel-subsidy protests provided an outlet for Nigerians, emboldened by the Arab Spring, to vent their grievances against a deeply corrupt ruling class and an incompetent government.

Whether Nigeria – a dynamic but troubled country encompassing a wide range of ethnic and religious groups – can hold together is becoming a pressing question not only for Nigerians but also for the world. It would be devastating to see Nigeria descend back into the sectarian violence that killed a million people between 1967 and 1970. On a more banal level, another civil war would almost certainly disrupt the country’s oil machine, a possibility that is adding yet another premium to current oil prices. Of the 2.2 million barrels of oil produced in Nigeria every day, 1.9 million are exported; 800,000 of them are sent to the United States. It is yet another example of how relying on oil produced in unstable countries on the other side of the world is not a recipe for US energy security.

So here’s to hoping against hope that Nigeria’s leaders can dig themselves out from the pressing weight of sectarian divisions, endemic corruption, and massive infrastructure needs and keep their country together. Just one piece of advice: leave the fuel subsidies alone.

[Petroleum-producing nations will increasingly be forced to keep more of their oil to fuel their economies. Coupled with production numbers falling in almost every country that exports crude, $5/gallon gas is a fait accompli.

This article is provided by Casey Research.

 

 

 

You can probably relate: Every year, come January 1, I just can’t help but feel that “every little thing is gonna be all right,” as Bob Marley sang.

This year, the mainstream financial community is sharing the same sentiment. Here’s how EWI’s Steve Hochberg summarized it [emphasis added]:

At its conclusion, 2011 was marked by back-and-forth stock swings that resulted in essentially a flat market. My Bloomberg screen shows that the DJIA ended up 5.53% for the year, the S&P was flat…while the NASDAQ was down 1.80%. The broadest aggregate measure of stock market performance, the DJ Wilshire 5000, which includes nearly all stocks that trade, ended 2011 down 1%.

The Dow’s action masks a strongly negative stock market performance overseas. For instance, in U.S. dollar terms, the Euro Stoxx 50 Index was down nearly 20% in 2011, with the FTSE down almost 6%, the French CAC off almost 20% and the German DAX down over 17%. Asian markets were also hit hard. The S&P Asia 50 lost over 15%, the Nikkei declined 13%, the Hang Seng was off 20%, the Shanghai Composite ended 2011 down over 18%, while Australia was lower by 14%. All were down in euro terms, too.

But not to worry: a recent USA Today article notes that a “quick survey of New Year’s prognostications from investment strategists suggests stocks might deliver the double-digit gains that they have put up, on average, over the long term. A snapshot of 2012 year-end-price targets from five firms shows an average gain of 10.5% for stocks.”

Very optimistic, indeed!

Except, when have we heard that kind of talk before?

Hochberg continues:

The “10.5%” forecasted gains for the coming year is interesting because it is almost exactly the average forecasted gains for stocks for 2011, as the subheading in the following Barron’s cover story from December 2010 shows.

That’s right. A year ago, forecasts for stocks in 2011 were just as optimistic as they are now for 2012 — and largely for the same reasons: improving economy, recovering real estate and jobs markets, and a host of other “better fundamentals.”

From an Elliott wave perspective, the reason 2011 mainstream financial forecasts fell flat was simple: Stocks don’t follow the economy. It’s the other way around: The economy follows stocks.

What’s Really Ahead for 2012? There is a lot of optimism building around the stock market, but is it based on sound analysis or hope created by recent economic news reports? Elliott Wave International has released a free report to help you navigate the markets and prepare for what’s ahead. You’ll get hard facts, 25 eye-opening charts and 14 pages of straightforward commentary that will help you see the “big picture” so you can position yourself for the years to come.

Download The Most Important Investment Report You’ll Read for 2012 now.

A look back on 18 months of analysis and reports on the European Credit Crisis

In 1999, 11 European countries surrendered their currencies for the euro and a shared monetary authority. Barely a decade later, the once-celebrated EU is in the midst of a credit crisis and its currency is facing collapse.

Elliott Wave International’s analysts have been anticipating and tracking the credit contagion across the European nations for the past two years. EWI subscribers were first alerted to the still-developing European debt crisis back in December 2009.

The following is excerpted from a December 2010 report from The European Debt Crisis, a new report from EWI. This free report provides important analysis from February 2010 through today that helps you understand what the European economic crisis can mean for your investments. Plus, you’ll get a unique perspective on what’s ahead. Find out how to access this free report below.

---

The Credit Crisis Spreads — December 2010
The credit crisis is escalating as expected. Back in January 2010, when ratings agency Moody’s bestowed “investment grade” status on a widely followed index of sovereign bonds, The European Financial Forecast argued that a renewed Primary-degree decline would in fact aim the credit crisis directly at this critical new realm. Our case for the looming sovereign debt debacle rested primarily on two pieces of evidence: (1) Primary wave 3 (circled) had begun in Europe’s peripheral markets, and (2) premiums for credit-default swaps on European sovereigns (think of an insurance policy against a national default) were already signaling the next phase of the crisis by surpassing their 2008-09 price extremes. The February 2010 issue of EFF published a chart showing rising Greek, Spanish and Italian swaps and offered this description of how Europe’s credit crunch would escalate: “The theme during Primary wave 1 (circled) was default at the individual, corporate and quasi-government level. The theme for Primary wave 3 (circled) will be default at the sovereign level.”

Today, the credit crunch is clearly angling itself away from mere corporations and toward whole countries. On November 15, Bloomberg announced the escalation with this headline:

Companies Safer Than Sovereigns as
Crisis Cracks ‘Old Order’
– Bloomberg, November 15, 2010

London credit strategist Greg Venizelos tells Bloomberg that the “old order” was the one where investors believed large sovereign nations to be better credit risks than corporate borrowers. However, debt is being repriced, he says, and today “corporates are now better credit quality than sovereigns in the periphery.” Indeed, swaps on Italian government bonds are more expensive than 75% of the Italian companies contained in the iTraxx Europe Index of European corporations. In Spain, traders deem Spanish sovereign debt to be riskier than all six Spanish companies in the index. Even in the supposedly safe core European country of France, 5-year swaps tied to French government bonds climbed to an all-time high of 105 basis points in November. At that level, more than half of the 25 French companies in the iTraxx index trade tighter than the French sovereign, according to Bloomberg.

The chart above shows another way to view the escalation of the credit crisis. By plotting the difference, or “spread,” between swaps on European corporations versus those on European sovereigns, the rising line shows derivative traders’ increasing fear over sovereign default relative to corporate borrowers. So, yes, the old order of safer sovereigns is over. But notice, too, that the debt crisis began escalating when the continent’s peripheral markets started topping way back in October 2009. The billion-euro question is, “Who is next?” The media is clearly focusing on Portugal, as 5-year credit default swaps tied to Portuguese bonds are setting all-time records. But charts show that so too are swaps tied to Spanish and Italian bonds. Five-year swaps on Belgian debt also reached an all-time high last month. Either one of these countries could be next. Maybe they’ll all go down together, but in the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. The most important thing to observe is that even core European countries like France and Germany exhibit spiking default insurance premiums, too. These countries are the largest contributors to the €440 billion Facility, the same one that backstops the rest of Europe.

The June 2010 European Financial Forecast said unequivocally that before the storm is over, “at least one, but more likely several, G8 nations will capsize.” We stand by our forecast.

---

The European Debt Crisis is affecting investments across the globe. Gain a valuable perspective on the European debt crisis and get ahead of what is yet to come in this FREE resource from Elliott Wave International. Read Your Free Report Now: The European Debt Crisis and Your Investments.

(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)

L: Doug, a lot of readers have been asking for guidance on how to know when it’s time to exit center stage and hunker down in some safe place. Few people want to hide from the world in a cabin in the woods while life goes on in the mainstream, but nobody wants to get caught once the gates clang shut on the police state the US is becoming. How do you know when it’s time to go?

Doug: Well, the first thing to keep in mind is that it’s better to be a year too early than a minute too late. David Galland recently read They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, by Milton Mayer. He quoted a passage in his column of last Friday. It goes a long way in explaining why Americans appear to be such whipped dogs today. They’re no different from the Germans of recent memory. For those who missed it, let me quote it:

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ … In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic… the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked… But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C?”

The fact is that the US has been on a slippery slope for decades, and it’s about to go over a cliff. However, our standard of living, while declining, is still very high, both relatively and absolutely. But an American can enjoy a much higher standard of living abroad.

On the other hand, if I were some poor guy in a poverty-wracked country with few opportunities, I’d want to go where the action is, where the money is, now. Today, that means trying to get into the United States. The US is headed the wrong direction, but it’s still a land of opportunity and a whole lot better than some flea-bitten village in Niger.

L: By the time things get worse than some Third-World dictatorship in the US, such a person could have remitted a whole lot of cash back home.

Doug: And you’d have a whole lot of experiences that would give you a competitive edge back where you came from, or in the next place you go to. The one-eyed man is king in the valley of the blind. People have to lose that backward, peasant mentality that ties them to the land of their birth. Sad to say, although the average American has somewhat more knowledge of the world – mainly due to television – his psychology is just as constrained as that of some serf from central Asia or some primitive village in Africa. It’s all a matter of psychology.

But if you’re not poor, you want to go someplace that is safe, nice – whatever that means to you – and with a lower cost of living. As most readers know, for me that’s Cafayate, Argentina, but one size does not fit all. It needs to be a place you actually enjoy spending some time, with people whose company you enjoy.

L: Fair enough. But our readers want to know if your guru-sense is tingling yet, or how close you think we are to it being too late to leave – or at least too late to leave with any meaningful assets.

Doug: I’m a trend observer. This is one of the advantages of studying history, because it shows you that things like this rarely happen overnight. They are usually the result of trends that build over years and years, sometimes over generations. In the case of the US, I think the trend has been downhill, in many ways, for many years. Pick a time. You could make an argument, from a moral point of view, that things started heading downhill at the time of the Spanish-American War. That was when a previously peaceful and open country first started conquering overseas lands and staking colonies. America was still in the ascent towards its peak economically, but the seeds of its own demise were already sewn, and a libertarian watching the scene might have concluded that it was time to get out of Dodge –

L: [Laughs] That would have been a bit early…

Doug: [Chuckles] Yes, that would have been way too soon. As Adam Smith observed, there’s a lot of ruin in a country.

L: On the other paw, it would have gotten you out before the War between the States, a disaster well worth avoiding.

Doug: No, the Spanish-American War was in 1898.

L: Oops! Sorry, I was thinking of what Americans call the Mexican-American War, but which Mexicans call the “American Invasion” –

Doug: [Laughs]

L: I’m not joking. That’s what they called it in the history books I was given in Mexican schools when I lived there in the ’70s. It has long seemed to me that that was an ominous turn for the worse for the US and a clear example of conquering a weaker neighbor purely for pillage – not just Texas, but everything from there all the way to California.

Doug: That’s right. Davey Crockett and the boys, we love them, but in many ways they were the equivalent of today’s Mexicans who want to recolonize the southwest and turn it back into part of Mexico, in what they call the Reconquista.

L: Indeed, but this is ancient history to most US taxpayers today – I’m reminded that it’s not correct in many cases to call them Americans.

Doug: Yes, just as it was a misnomer to call the people who lived in the Roman Empire after Diocletian Romans – because Roman citizens were once free men. After about 300 AD most of them were bound to the land or their occupations as serfs. But the slide for Rome started at least 120 years earlier, after the death of Marcus Aurelius. Politically, the decline started with the accession of Julius Caesar 240 years before that. So, when did the slide – politically, economically, and socially – really start for the US? When were there no more trends going up?

L: FDR? The New Deal was really a moral, economic, and political turning point.

Doug: You could make that argument, but the US still grew economically, despite the roadblocks FDR threw in its path. US military power and global prestige continued growing from that point, although, paradoxically, the accelerating growth of the US military was directly responsible for the decline of the US economically and in terms of personal freedom. One reason for the ascendancy of the US after World War II was that we were the only major country in the world not physically devastated by the war.

L: Ah. Right.

Doug: So it seems to me that the peak of American civilization was in the 1960s. As for evidence, well, I like to put my finger on the 1959 Cadillac. Those twin bullet taillights, the opulence of it… In terms of then-current technology, things couldn’t get much better.

L: “Opulence. I has it.”

Doug: [Laughs – a real belly laugh] That’s my favorite TV commercial! Anyway, that was the peak, in my mind. Though things continued getting better for a while, the US started to live out of capital.

L: Had to pay for guns and butter.

Doug: That’s right. The Johnson administration’s so-called Great Society created vast new federal bureaucracies that promised Americans free food, shelter, medical care, education, and what-have-you. Americans became true wards of the state. But the real, final nail in the coffin for America was in 1971 –

L: Nixon taking the US off the gold standard.

Doug: Nixon taking the US off the gold standard – open devaluation of the dollar, combined with wage and price controls for some months. And that was not long after the so-called Bank Secrecy Act, which abolished bank secrecy, and required the reporting of all foreign financial accounts. Nixon was, in many ways, even more of a disaster than Johnson. Republicans are usually worse than Democrats when it comes to freedom, partly because they like to couch their depredations in the rhetoric of defending the free market. While everyone understands that Democrats are socialists just under the surface, Republicans actually give capitalism a bad name. Baby Bush is a perfect, recent example.

L: But don’t you worry your pretty little head about devaluation – it’s just a “bugaboo” – and as long as you’re not one of those unpatriotic people wanting to buy imports or vacation abroad, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today. The scary thing is that the Belarusian dictator Lukashenko said almost the same thing when the Belarusian ruble lost two thirds of its forex value earlier this year, asking his countrymen why they need to go on vacation in Germany or buy German cars…

Doug: You see why I like to study history? It doesn’t repeat, but it sure does rhyme…

L: With a vengeance.

Doug: So, anyway, since 1971, some things have improved largely due to technological advances, but the America That Was has been fading into the past. It was a decisive turning point. You can see that in the accelerated proliferation of undeclared wars we’ve had since then. I don’t just mean the penny-ante invasions of Granada and Panama – the US has always lorded it over Caribbean and Central American banana republics; those are just sport wars. But Iraq and Afghanistan are alien cultures on the other side of the world – apart from never posing any threat to the US. Now it looks like Iran and Pakistan are on the dance card, and they’re big game. The War Against Islam has started in earnest, and it’s going to end badly for the US. I explained all this at great length in the white paper, Learn to Make Terror Your Friend, that I wrote for The Casey Report last month.

Domestically, saying that the US is turning into a police state when you started this conversation was quite accurate. You can see more and more videos spreading over the Internet, not just of police brutality, but demonstrating the militarization and federalization of police, who are being inculcated with both disdain for and paranoia about ordinary citizens.

In the old days, if you were stopped for speeding, the peace officer was polite – you could get out of your car, meet the cop on neutral ground, and chat with him. You didn’t have a serious problem unless you were obviously drunk or combative. Now, you don’t dare make a move. You better keep your hands in plain sight on the steering wheel and be ready for a Breathalyzer test without probable cause. The law enforcement officer will stand behind you with his hand on his gun. And you’re the one who’d better be polite.

L: There has been a polar reversal. The cops used to address citizens as “sir” or “ma’am.” Now, the correct response in a traffic stop is: “Yes, sir! I would love to inspect the bottom of your boot, sir!”

Doug: [Laughs] That’s right. My friend Marc Victor gives out magnetized business cards. People ask, “Why?” He answers that it’s so clients can put them on the bottom of their cars or refrigerators, so they can see it when the cops throw them to the ground.

L: Marc’s a good man. There’s a handy video on Marc’s website, offering advice on what to do if you’re pulled over by the police in a traffic stop.

Doug: A good public service announcement. At any rate, I think there’s no question that the US has turned the corner on every basis: politically, socially, morally, and now, economically…

L: Okay, but, Doug, you said that in 1979 too. The question is, how do we know when the door is going to close?

Doug: [Laughs.] Well, sometimes I feel a little like the boy who cried wolf. But Roman writers like Tacitus and Sallust saw where Rome was going before it got completely out of control. Should they have said nothing, for fear of being too early? Here in the US, it should have gone over the edge back in the 1980s, but we got lucky. There was still a lot of forward momentum, which can last for decades when you’re speaking of civilizations. There was the computer productivity boom. The Soviet Union collapsed, China liberalized, and Communism was discredited everywhere except on US college campuses. The end of the Cold War opened up vast areas of the world to the global market. And most surprising of all, Volker tightened up the money supply and interest rates went high, causing people to save money and stop borrowing to consume.

L: That’s not happening this time.

Doug: No. We got lucky back then. Since the ’90s we’ve had a long and totally phony, debt-driven boom that’s now come to an end. I feel very confident that there’s no way out this time. There are huge distortions and misallocations of capital that have been cranked into the system for two decades. And not just in the US this time, but in Europe, China, Japan, and elsewhere.

The US is very clearly on the decline. The fact that in spite of bankrupting military expenditures to no gain for the American people, those in power are talking overtly and aggressively about attacking more countries – Iran and Pakistan in particular – is extremely grave. The fact that they attacked Libya – which, incidentally, is going to turn into a total disaster, a civil war that will last for years – shows it’s not stopping. Sure, Obama brought troops home from Iraq – another disaster that’s going to remain a disaster for years to come – but at the same time he put a company of combat troops in Uganda, of all places and Marines in Australia, to provoke the Chinese.

Back home, I’ve read reports that people are being stopped for carrying gold coins out of the US, in Houston in particular. Now we have authorization of the military to detain US citizens, on US soil, with no trail, and indefinitely, on the verge of becoming law. And Predator Drones have been used to hunt down farmers on their own ranches.

I could go on and on. This is not like spotting early signs of decay in America’s expansionist wars of the 19^th century or things getting worse with FDR. Most people can’t see it with all the noise and confusion, but we’ve reached the edge of the precipice.

L: Don’t worry about exactly where the edge is, just assume it’s there and take appropriate action?

Doug: Yes. It really is there. It’s a clear and present danger. But most Americans are as oblivious as most Germans were in the ’30s. In fact, most of them support what’s going on, just as most Germans supported their government in the ’30s and ’40s.

L: So… don’t worry about figuring out exactly when the gates will shut. Assume they are shutting now?

Doug: That’s right. One should be actively and vigorously looking to expatriate assets, cash, and even one’s self. A prudent person will always be diversified politically and internationally.

L: What about people who have jobs they can’t continue doing from abroad and who need the income?

Doug: They should still prepare, as best they can, to be ready to go on a vacation when things get hot – a vacation from which they might not return for a long time. All that needs happen, with the hysteria that’s building in the US, is for a major terrorist incident – real or imagined – to occur. Homeland Security will lock the country down. I hate to admit it, but I’m almost starting to credit the stories about those FEMA camps.

Look, I know it sounds extreme, and the comparison to pre-WWII Germany has been made many times, but it bears repeating. Germany was the most literate, civilized, and even mellow, in some ways, country in Europe. It was much admired all around the world – a nation of shopkeepers, small farmers, and scholars. But the whole character of the place started changing in 1933, and it just got worse and worse. By the end of 1939, if you weren’t out, you were done.

L: [Pauses] Well, not a cheerful thought. Actions to take?

Doug: Things we’ve said before: Set up foreign bank accounts in places you like to travel, while you can. Set up vault arrangements for physical precious metals outside the US. Buy foreign real estate that you’d like to own, because it can’t be forcibly repatriated. Offshore asset protection trusts are a good idea too. Become an International Man. Let me emphasize that US taxpayers should stay within all US laws, because the consequences of breaking them are unbelievably draconian.

Generally, one simply must internationalize one’s assets. The biggest danger investors face, by far, is not market risk – huge as that will be – but political risk. The only way to insulate yourself from such risk is to diversify yourself politically and geographically.

L: Right then… words to the wise. Thanks for your insight.

Doug: You’re welcome. Most won’t, but I just hope readers listen.

[For more specific investment advice and big-picture observations from Doug – as well as insightful analyses from other Casey Research experts, including Chief Economist Bud Conrad – give The Casey Report a test drive. It is absolutely risk-free for ninety days… and will give you a solid boost in becoming a rational speculator.]

By Terry Coxon, Casey Research

By keeping all your assets in the country where you live, you commit, ahead of time, to ratify whatever policy your home government might adopt, no matter how objectionable, unreasonable or pernicious that policy happens to be. If the next new mandate is “Register today to get a nail pounded into your head,” you’re already signed up.

Americans, by and large, run all their affairs within the confines of the US. The US economy is so large and so varied that it’s easy to assume that everything you want to do with your wealth can be done without crossing any borders. And people in the US, like people anywhere, live with the habits and attitudes developed over generations. They’re only human. In the case of Americans, those habits grew out of long experience with a government that was small and that generally practiced the rare virtue of following its own laws. In a happy exception to mankind’s experience with rulers, there was little to fear from it.

Stay at home is still the norm for Americans, but it’s a norm that is slowly fading. Every billion-dollar tick of the government debt clock, every expansion of the government’s regulatory apparatus, every overreaching judicial decision made in the name of a compelling public need, every inversion of protection for citizens into license for the state and every intellectually tortured discovery of a new meaning in the Constitution’s 4,400 old words leaves a few thousand more people wondering how prudent it is to consign all their eggs to a single national basket. Encounters with high-handed IRS agents and eager TSA gropers do nothing to ease that concern. And for those who listen thoughtfully, the messages from our designated leaders and their would-be replacements only hurry the dawning sense of unease.

Specific worries include exposure to predatory lawsuits, especially claims that could draw extra go-power by association with politically favored causes or legally favored groups; fear of where income tax rates might climb; the prospect of losing a family business in a regulatory battle or simply through estate tax; the fragility of financial institutions that have operated for forty years with the assurance that the Federal Reserve would rescue them from any folly; the possibility that a government desperate to protect the dollar from collapse might impose foreign exchange controls or capital controls; the memory and precedent of the forced gold sales of 1933; and the thought that a government floundering in deficits might start pilfering from IRAs and other pension plans.

But beyond those particular worries and perhaps more important than any of them is the sense that from here on, anything goes. The politicians will do whatever they find convenient, because there is no longer anything to stop them – not an electorate that is jealous of its freedoms and certainly not the Constitution, which is now just a playhouse for judicial imagineering. No one can know what’s coming next from the government and the financial system it has fostered, but for many of us there is an awful suspicion that we are not going to like it.

Most Americans still have yet to stick a single financial toe across the border, but more and more are considering it. Many, perhaps millions of toes are now twitching at the thought. Their owners want to end their absolute dependence on what happens in the US. They want to prepare for whatever is coming down the road, even though they don’t know what it will be. They want to be as ready as possible, even though their worries can only guess at what’s ahead.

Because internationalizing your financial life means dealing with the unfamiliar, the project can seem more complex than it really is, so it’s best to start with the simplest measures, even if by themselves they don’t give you all the safety you’re looking for. Even from a simple beginning, what you learn with each step will make the next step easier to plan. Start with the first rung on the ladder of internationalization. Then climb, at your own speed, to reach the right level of protection.

Rung 1: Coins in Your Pocket

Gold coins that you’ve stored personally give you something whose value doesn’t depend on the health of the US economy, doesn’t depend on any financial institution in the US and doesn’t depend on any US government policy. Gold coins are portable and hold their value no matter where in the world you might take them. They’re internationalization in a wafer. Safety cookies.

It’s best to buy the coins for cash, for maximum privacy. And there is a good reason to favor one-tenth-ounce gold Eagles. Gold coins mean readiness for troubled times; if you ever need to dispose of the gold in an informal market, it will be easier to do so with small-denomination coins that are widely recognizable and whose value matches the scale on which large numbers of people normally trade.

The premium on one-tenth-ounce coins (the price compared with the value of the gold content) is higher than on the larger coins – usually about 15% for the small coins vs. 5% for one-ounce Eagles. But the premium isn’t a dead cost, like a commission or bid-ask spread. The premium is a second investment; it’s what you pay for the packaging, and you can expect to recover it when you sell or trade. And in the circumstances when you would have the strongest reasons for thanking yourself for having bought some gold, the premium you paid will look like a bargain.

By Jeff Clark, Casey Research

2011 was remarkable in many ways for the precious metals markets. Gold soared to new highs in early September, hitting at an intraday record of $1,920/ounce on the fifth. Silver screamed to within a hair of $50 on April 28. Corrections ensued, and the metals ended the year on a disappointing note for silver and an underwhelming note for gold. Equities for the sector were down, to way down for junior ventures, logging their worst annual return since 2008.

Here’s a table of 2011 returns from most major asset classes:

(Click on image to enlarge)

Gold registered its eleventh consecutive annual gain, extending the bull market that began in 2001. The yellow metal gained 10.1% – a solid return, though moderate when compared to previous years.

Silver lost almost 10% year over year, due primarily to its dual nature. Currency concerns lit a match under the price early in the year, while global economic concerns forced it to give it all back later.

Gold mining stocks couldn’t shake the need for antidepressants most of the year, and another correction in gold in December dragged them further down.

Meanwhile, those who sat in US government debt in 2011 were handsomely rewarded, with Treasury bonds recording one of their biggest annual gains. In spite of the unparalleled downgrade of the country’s AAA credit rating, Treasuries were one of the best-performing asset classes of the year. The driving forces there are expanding fear about the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, combined with the Fed’s promise to keep interest rates low through 2013.

But perhaps it would be more accurate to look at 2011 in a larger context. How did these investments perform over the past three years?

(Click on image to enlarge)

There’s a lot to be said about the chart above, but we’ll cut to the chase: Despite the higher volatility, we’d much rather be investing in the assets on the left side of the chart than those on the right.

But 2011 is now part of the history books. The important question before us is: Is gold still one of the best places for money going forward? Let’s take a look at what we might expect in 2012 based on what we just left behind…

The Fundamental Case for Gold Remains Rock Solid

Gold demand from investment and central banks grew tremendously last year. Further, the geography of gold buying was widespread, with big purchases coming from Europe during the initial bouts of their crisis and Japan after the Fukushima accident. Small investors and monetary authorities alike purchased gold due to economic, financial, monetary, and political concerns. Quite frankly, we see none of these factors changing anytime soon.

Further, many countries continue to debase their currencies at phenomenal rates (see Bud Conrad’s related article below). While US Treasuries may be a good temporary parking spot for cash, don’t kid yourself about what’s behind it all: nothing. The dollar is a fiat currency, no more. A true safe haven is something that cannot be debased, devalued, or destroyed by any government. After accounting for inflation, your dollars are worth less every year.

The reasons for gold’s bull market aren’t going away anytime soon. Make sure you have enough exposure to make a material difference to your portfolio.

Don’t Be Deceived by Promises of Economic Growth

The US economy ended the year on a high note – the job market is improving, gas is cheaper, consumer confidence grew, real estate showed signs of recovery, and the holiday shopping season turned out better than most economists expected. So, can the US grow its way out of the debt burden? Can we forget about further money printing schemes that are bullish for gold?

We think there’s little chance that growth will be sustainable in 2012. First, the biggest chunk of GDP growth in 2011 came from personal consumption – savings cuts and income growth in particular.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Strong GDP growth comes from production, not consumption. As Doug Casey has stated many times, it’s also the secret to personal wealth: “Produce more than you consume and save and invest the difference.”

Second, according to a recent Time article, “The government says that once you adjust for inflation, weekly earnings dropped 1.8% from November 2010 to last month” [November 2011]. As a result, “Consumers have used savings or credit cards to finance their purchases.” This is hardly a sign of a strong economy.

Combining these facts with surging government debt and ongoing deficit spending means the “growth” in GDP is largely supported by… debt. US debt surpassed GDP last year for the first time since 1947, and if the Keynesians get their way, the cure for our massive debt overhang will be… more debt. Any such scheme, regardless of its name, is very bullish for gold.

Preserve your wealth with gold, not fiat currency.

The Gold Price Will Continue To Be Volatile

The average annual gold price in 2011 was $1,571.50/ounce, which was 28% higher than the prior year’s average. As we outlined in a recent article about gold corrections, the average retreat in gold since 2001 (of those greater than 5%) is 12.5%. Declines of this degree are normal. They will happen again. Thus, expected price behavior leads us to get excited when gold and related stocks go on sale, not depressed about the dips.

If you buy gold during corrections, your gain by the end of the year will be higher than the annual advance.

Gold Equities Are (Still) Dirt Cheap

Yes, precious metals stocks have lagged the underlying commodity price throughout the year. Yes, they were a disappointment in 2011 – but 2011 is only one chapter in this gold bull-market story. For most miners, margins are high, dividends are increasing, and valuations are extremely low, despite the recent fall in metal prices. We can’t tell you exactly when the turnaround will begin, but we’re confident that the time is coming when gold stocks will once again bring us leveraged performance, particularly when the greater investment community recognizes their value and clamors for increased exposure to the gold market.

The old adage to buy low and sell high still applies. When it comes to gold stocks, we’re at the “buy low” part of the formula right now.

So, if you’re feeling like 2011 was a dud for your gold portfolio, we suggest you shake off the funk. It is precisely when such feelings abound that contrarian buying opportunities are at their best. The way to buy low is to buy when others are selling. Using the current weakness in prices to get positioned for the next liftoff is the way to play this. Remember that volatility cuts both ways: just like dips, a springboard to the upside will come – of that we’re certain. And given the tenuous state of global finances and the temptation to print, one of these liftoffs is going to be life-changing.

[2012 could be one for the record books for gold and gold stocks, based on the simple fact that big climbs follow big falls – and Casey Research expects many more big climbs in this bull market. Learn how Jeff Clark boosted his mother's IRA over 90%... something you can do, too.]