Yesterday the SP500 hit 870 twice: at 12:00 and again at 2:00 Eastern. It held both times and ended the day at 879. 870 - 875 had been the SP500 target for weeks as the bottom of a trading range. So, the fact that it held, not once, but twice, is very encouraging. This forms a technical formation called a double bottom, which only means that an important level was tested  by traders more than once. The market trading bears didn't have enough selling power to push the index through that level for now. Any good earnings news like the better-than-expected Alcoa results yesterday will give the bulls more encouragement and may force out the bears at some point.

I noticed that all the cyclical / materials stocks were moving exactly with the SP500 all day Wednesday. This is an indication that materials and energy are a proxy for economic recovery. When the market feels the prospects for the economy become better, deep cyclicals and materials move higher. So FCX made a bottom at around $43.50 at both times and SU made a bottom at around $25.75. For both high beta stocks, they are off by more than 20% in the past two weeks, which means they are in their own mini-bear markets. (FCX is off over 30% from its June high).

So, is this a good time to buy? The long term thesis is inflation to correct the Federal deficits and pay for growth in money supply / weakened dollar. Commodities / materials are the best way to play that move.  But is now the time? 

I am waiting as there is a lot of downside momentum in oil and basic metals (copper).  Many traders (probably too many for a contrarian like me), feel that oil is headed to $50.  But industry experts tell us that any price below $70 today will shut down supply, leading to higher prices at some point as demand exceeds supply.  I have small positions in energy (SU, PWE an UNG) but am out of basic materials (I normally use FCX and BHP).  If the SP500 gets back above 900 with some conviction as shown by volume, I will consider adding to the above positions. I hope I can put money back in by next week.

Nirav at "LivingOffDividends" just gave me some more grist for my opinion mill.  I hope he doesn't mind being my debatee in the Socratic tradition. 

"LOD" is somewhat Goldbuggish, which is not a scathing criticism.  LOD does a great job of exploring various classes of investing and living life.  The overall theme and site moniker is an outstanding recommendation.   But, while I think gold is a terrific financial asset and has its place in just about any portfolio, one must be careful to advise that people flee to gold because of the prospect of inflation / deflation or everything in between.  Gold has lost people a lot of money over the ages.  It is a store of wealth, but not much of an investment as it does not grow, or help a business grow.  It just sits there like a pretty lump.

Here is the LivingOffDividends post and my rebuttal:

Insurance Company Buys $400 Million in Gold

I just can’t let this one pass without a challenge. Sure, money supply has exploded at the Federal level. But it has done so by deliberate effort to replace the value of assets destroyed by the financial crisis and real estate panic. I think a healthy way to look at this is as a transfer of the financial bubble from weak hands to strong hands that can absorb and dissipate the bubble. By the way, this is the same financial bubble that has been traveling through the American economy since the early 1980s, if not before. The private sector seems to be unable to deal with the hot potatoe, so it had to end up in public hands at this point. But as you say, the wealth will gradually be transferred by the Feds back to the private sector over the next 5-10 years.

Once money is created, it cannot be destroyed. It is similar to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Conservation of Energy. That theory everyone knows as E=M*C squared. Mass can be transmuted to energy, but it always will exist in one or another form. Money (wealth)  is not only preserved over all of time once created, but can be  increased by the productive enterprise of humans.  Once created, it can be transferred and transmuted into different forms of assets, but it cannot be destroyed (call this “Brian’s Theory of Monetary Conservancy”).

Consider the history of great civilizations that have risen and fallen.  The political structure of those civilizations has ceased and political power has disappeared in the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire (Italy), the Spanish Empire, the British Empire and the Chinese Dynasties.  But the wealth created by those political systems has lived on and been passed down over the generations.  Even World Wars have proven unable to destroy wealth, as inconceivable as this seems.

I wrote about this idea on my blog back on May 4th. http://wealth-ed.com/2009/05/04/gmo-and-the-persistence-of-stock-market-returns/

I quoted one of the true financial experts of our time, Jeremy Grantham regarding the phenomenon of indestructible wealth:

“The Great Depression is far and away the most striking period on the chart (see linked article for charts). Real GDP fell by 25% from 1929 to 1933, in what was easily the worst economic event to hit the U.S. since the Civil War. But that fall, as extraordinary as it was, was a fall in demand relative to potential GDP, not a fall in the economy’s productive capacity, and so the economy eventually (by 1945) got back onto its previous growth trend as if the Depression had never happened.”

So, while it is very interesting that a life insurance company has decided to buy some gold to diversify its assets (I am sure a very small percent of its total managed assets), there is nothing about this that should indicate anything significant about gold for the future. Gold is just another class of asset. That is all. It has no special place as compared to other real assets, and it may be less important or significant than assets which have some productive use, like copper or oil.

I also refute the assertion that gold has a use as an asset offering protection when an economy is “weakening”. Gold has some short term panic value, as it did last fall. But if it didn’t shoot to $2500 an ounce during the worst financial crisis since 1930, then it probably is not even good as an insurance policy during a crisis.

The statement: “CEO Zore believes that the price of gold could double “or even rise fivefold” if the economy continues to weaken.”, just tells me that Mr. Zore should not be running a major insurance company. That statement is shear stupidity and shows a lack of financial understanding. Gold might increase by five-fold if the dollar weakens to 20% of its current value. But that is the only way this scenario will play out. For the dollar to weaken in that way, the economy would have to be going strong. We just saw that the dollar STRENGTHENS as a global safety trade when the economy tanks.

Yes, gold will appreciate while the dollar depreciates.  It is a fiat currency alternative. That is a given. But while people have been watching gold trade between $900 and $1000 the past 3 months, oil has gone from $30 to $70. So which asset has more potential to protect against inflation while providing investment opportunities?

Why is Natural Gas so cheap (3.87 per mmBTU as of today) while Oil is moving ever higher? This is a significant disconnect that does not make long term sense. Historically, the average ratio between West Texas crude and Henry Hub natural gas has been 8.5 to 1.  Currently, it is at a historic ratio of 19:1.

With oil at $72 per barrel, natural gas should be around $8.47. That represents a 125% potential pop in the price of natural gas if the price of oil stays constant. Many experts believe that oil is fairly priced right now, give the costs of exploration and extraction.

UNG is the easiest pure play on the price of natural gas. This ETF is based on natural gas futures and moves directly with that price. UNG trades for $14.50 as of today, but would be over $30 if natural gas normalized its pricing against oil. So, just on current relative value, natural gas is a value play with great upside potential in the intermediate term (12 months). But it is an even better play in the longer term (1-5 years).

President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress will definitely pass some type of environmental legislation this year or early next. That legislation is aimed directly against carbon and its role in global warming (or the theory thereof, since it is not conclusively proven). In the next several months, either a "Cap and Trade" or a straight up carbon tax will be passed. The moderates in Congress and most of the heavy industrial world, faced with the reality of some type of legislation, are rallying behind a carbon tax for its simplicity and for the fact that the cost can be passed along to the consumer much more efficiently and without the distortion and potential fraud of cap and trade.

For natural gas, either scenario is very attractive. Natural gas per BTU of energy, is much cleaner than oil or coal, the two primary fossil fuel alternatives. So, if a carbon tax is passed by legislation this year, natural gas will immediately become more competitive. Its historical relationship to oil should decline even below 8.5. If it moves to 7.0, then the relative cost today should be $10 per mmBTU for natural gas.

Longer term, with or without a tax advantage over oil, natural gas promises to be used as a transitional fuel to alternative energies like solar, wind and geothermal. T Boone Pickens has proposed, and spent a considerable portion of his wealth, promoting the idea of natural gas powered vehicles. Once fuel cell powered vehicles become practical, within 10 years with government encouragement / subsidy, natural gas is likely to be the first fuel used by such vehicles. This reality will be encouraged if Pickens is successful in getting existing fuel stations in North America to add natural gas to their product offering at the pump.

Pure hydrogen vehicles are a better environmental option, since the byproduct of the chemical reaction is pure water. But the manufacture, storage and distribution of highly combustible hydrogen has many science, engineering and production problems yet to be solved.

So, how can we benefit from this megatrend?

The Canadian Canroys are one good way to anticipate this new trend.  Much of North American natural gas is in the western provinces of Canada. I have owned and benefited from Pennwest (PWE), Pengrowth (PGH), Provident (PVX), Daylight (DAYYF), Baytex and Harvest Energy for many years (until last July when the entire commodity complex hit the skids).  U.S. based producers include Anadarko, Chesapeake, XTO, Southwest Energy and Lynn Energy.   All the above offer decent dividends, though not nearly as attractive as a year ago, so there is somewhat less reason to buy and hold as there was in the past.

For extra leverage, sell "In the Money" UNG put options on the October $18 strike price (UNEVR) for around $4.50 premium per share of underlying stock (with the stock price at $14.50 as of today). This buys $1 of downside protection and provides over $3 of upside opportunity. If the price finishes above $18 on October 16, the puts will expire worthless and you will keep the $4.50 premium. The stock price of the UNG ETF will only need to move to about $5.00 from the current $4.00 for this to happen. But execute a "Buy to Close" order any where along the way, for example, when the premium falls to $2 for a double on your investment (times 5 for the inherent leverage of options) to lock in profits. This gives a 500% return in less than six months.

Because the market, especially commodity stocks, looks ready to correct, it may be prudent and profitable to wait on this until after a market correction.  I am looking for a move back down to SP500 of 875 in the next couple of weeks.  Once that move is done, it may be possible to sell the same puts for $5.50 (with the underlying UNG at $13). 

Have fun making money.

A response to a post by my good blog friend, Nirav:

Nirav, this is the problem with professors having opinions. Some people may want to think those opinions are more meaningful or well-informed because a given professor happens to be employed by a school like Stanford, or NYU (Roubini). But, such professors opinions about the future are no better than yours or mine. Professors should teach, and not opine.

The first thing wrong with Taylor’s opinion is his lack of command of basic financial math. A 100% change in nominal GDP over 10 years (and the resultant 50% cut in debt to GNP ratio) does not require a 10% annual inflation, but a 7.2% inflation, according to the Rule of 72, something any college finance or economics professor should know. I fully expect a 6-7% inflation within 2 years and think the Fed and Treasury are actually trying to orchestrate that.

The second thing wrong with the Professor’s opinion is the statement that a “permanent 60% tax increase would be required” to balance the budget. That statement is inconsistent with the 10% inflation conclusion. I think taxes could be left unchanged, or only increased to the degree Obama proposes, along with spending decreases, and inflation will do the rest. Not only will inflation cheapen the debt over time, it also will increase the number of dollars in which the debt is paid off. Anyone who owned a home in the 1970s remembers what a good deal inflation was at that time, so long as the mortgage was fixed. You could buy a $40K home, watch it appreciate to $80K with inflation, but pay off the debt as though it were still $40K. To the degree the Feds fix our interest costs (by issuing 30 year bonds which they should be doing in a big way right now), we will all benefit from the repayment in debt with ever cheaper dollars.

Inflation is the only way out of this box. I think the 1970s scenario is not only likely to occur, but welcome. It helped us resolve our Johnson era “guns and butter” Great Society debt of the 1960s, which in its time, was every bit as problematic as where we are today.

I would go on to say that as a responsible investor, it is important to try and anticipate the future, and not wait for it to run you over.  If inflation is in our future, as I think it most surely is, then a prudent investment strategy will take that into account.  The way to not only beat, but prosper from inflation is to own hard (real) assets, or stocks thereof. 

Oil, natural gas, industrial metals, precious metals, timberland, ag commodities, all the equipment suppliers to those industries (Joy Global, Deere, Cat, Monsanto, Nabors, Transocean, Dow Chemical, Dupont), and even real estate or REITs in the near future (once RE stops deflating) will all benefit from a long period of moderate inflation.  The Fed has demonstrated in the past its ability to prevent hyper-inflation, so that should not be a great worry.  Ben Bernanke knows the economics playbook very well.  So, rather than nashing teeth over the course of easy money and tax deficits, instead, put those actions to your own advantage.

Here is his post:

How to Reduce a Trillion Dollar Deficit

As we begin to move towards economic recovery, it begs the question "what next?"  It is unlikely America will have a strong economy, as measured in 4+% GNP growth, for many years to come.  We have oceans of debt to pay off.  Even if the Feds are able to transfer the enormous debt hole from the private to the public sector to assist the economic recovery (and save the banking system), that debt still must be paid back in some form. 

There is a high liklihood that the public debt will be paid back through several different means: higher taxes, limited spending and most significantly dollar devaluation (aka inflation) over a long period of time.  Higher taxes and limited government spending will put a cap on American economic growth and will ensure a very slow economic recovery or even stagnation.  An extended period of 1-3% GNP  growth can be expected.  But with a weakening dollar, it is possible that rate of growth will not keep pace with inflation of 5-7%.  So, real GNP will be negative for several years undermining domestic investment returns.  All this is very remiscent of the late 1970s.

But there was a way to make decent, and maybe even excellent, real investment returns in the 1970s.  It was by investing away from America in hard or real assets like commodities and in the growth of non-dollar economies like Japan. 

In the 2000s, the new Japans are the BRIC nations: large, motivated and politically willing.  Today's post is on investing in three of those four.  Brazil, India and especially China meet my requirements for foreign market investing.  But Russia, I do not trust.  Its political system has shown contempt for foreign investment.  It very much resembles the politics of the USSR, with a newly energized "politburo" that controls the economy and stifles free enterprise (though we here in America are catching up fast on this front).  So, I will focus my non-dollar investments in BIC, not BRIC. 

As of today, I am selling all of my long term international mutual fund investment in Fidelity Diversified International (FDIVX) and will gradually move those dollars in equal amounts to IFN (India Fund), EWZ (Brazil ETF) and FXI (China ETF).  I will dollar cost average in because all three markets / funds have just experienced a very strong surge from the bottom of the market crash and may correct. 

My goal will be to move my portfolio to 20% in non-dollar market investments.  Beyond the country ETFs, I also will buy strategic investments in Canada, Australia and non-China Asia.  I will have another 35% of my total portfolio invested in commodities and energy.  This position is already in place with most of the commodity portfolio in Canadian Royalty Trusts (Canroys).  I am also adding FXC and BHP to provide more industrial metals exposure along with additional precious metals exposure, adding to VGPMX and GGN by buying gold miners like AEM and AUY.   The balance of my portfolio will be in domestic stock and bond funds, especially high yield bonds which can keep up with the devaluing of inflation.  In this way, my portfolio will have less than 50% US dollar exposure to protect against inflation and a decade long weak economy.

Today's Barrons runs a great story on this same subject. 

The [most important factor in the coming commodity boom is the] growth of the middle class in the rapidly developing economies; large-scale infrastructure investments in many developing nations; and the emergence in these regions of a huge new consumer cohort, which has developed out of the poverty of the past.  The size of this low-income cohort dwarfs anything the global marketplace has ever seen. Approximately one billion people, one- seventh of the world's population, are moving out of poverty and entering the market as consumers. If these billion consumers were a nation, they would have the third-largest population in the world and the 10th-largest gross domestic product.

China lacks the raw materials it needs to manufacture steel. This has turned it into the world's largest importer of iron ore. It has been accounting for 40% or more of the international iron-ore trade in recent years.  China's need for steel will continue long into the future. Remember that the U.S. took 35 years to finish its Interstate highway system. It took 16 years for Japan to build its New Trunk Line railway. Even with China spending a reported 9% of its GDP on infrastructure, it will take decades to bring its roads, ports, airports, power-generation capacity and other infrastructure systems up to speed.

Read the entire story here:

Commodities' Coming Rebound