- Joined
- 13 February 2006
- Posts
- 5,193
- Reactions
- 11,917
The basic problem with Bitcoin as I see it is that even if it is accepted and legal, it's just far too volatile to use as basis for real world transactions of anything at all.Here's the thing: if you went out last night, came home a bit late and slept in, you could have gone out a millionaire and come back potless. That is not a store of anything. That is just rampant tulip speculation
a snake eating its tail:The basic problem with Bitcoin as I see it is that even if it is accepted and legal, it's just far too volatile to use as basis for real world transactions of anything at all.
Would anyone agree to sell me their house for an agreed price denominated in Bitcoin? By the time it settles, it you could be receiving anything from an outright fortune through to not enough money to buy a loaf of bread.
Even the official fiat currency of most Third World countries is considerably more stable and that being so, it's something with neither an intrinsic value nor a practical use.
The market and BTC are not correlated:
My read and for what it is worth, China is playing a long game and the USA are going to get slammed dunk.Just to wrap up the week:
Just on the numbers, it would have seemed in retrospect, a pretty calm sort of market and to be fair, it probably was. It just didn't feel that way.
View attachment 124686
The market and BTC are not correlated:
View attachment 124687
While in BTC it has been a shocker of a month. Well cryptos in general.
View attachment 124688
What the market is correlated to currently is DXY.
View attachment 124692
DXY trades higher, market trades lower. DXY trades lower, market trades higher. Assuming that relationship holds....which way DXY? Lower. I don't know what rates would need to be to create a bull market in DXY, but it certainly is higher than 2% To turn DXY round I'd posit at least 5%.
Chances of rates going to 5%? ZERO.
With above $150 Trillion in Federal liabilities, never mind another $14T in Corporates, $50T in MBS and Munis, rates have to stay low, otherwise the level of defaults will trigger a deflation that will put the 1929 - 1934 period to shame. The Fed. would try to fight that deflation with liquidity (what else is there?) resulting in more than likely a true hyper-inflation and the demise of DXY.
So we will have an ongoing inflation for years, probably for my lifetime now. The only issue is, once the genie is out of the bottle, just how bad is it going to get?
With regard to stocks, the market will rise in a bull trend, but it now becomes more of a stock picker's market. Sectors that benefit from inflation will outperform those that struggle against a rising tide.
What I like:
(i) Healthcare. Boomers are ageing, they have money, health is pretty non-negotiable.
(ii) Drugs. Which runs alongside to the above.
(iii) Real Estate. REITS can push up rents etc. Again, somewhere to live is pretty non-negotiable.
Commodities
(iv) Energy to a point. If prices rise past a point 'X', lots of supply can come in.
(v) Agriculture, more so than in the recent past. Tricky one. Stay with the biggies, Wheat, Corn, SOYB.
Gold as paper.
(vi) Miners as a leveraged play on gold/silver. Probably slow, steady, sustained.
The other big issue will be growth. With tensions rising across the globe, the entire globalisation thing, along with just-in-time-supply is going to take a baseball bat to the head. If, inflation runs hot through commodities, into producer goods and on into consumer goods, holding excess inventory makes more sense. If supply lines are patchy, it makes more sense to hold more inventory. Rising prices = higher inventory. Falling prices = less inventory. Shortages are de rigueur in inflationary periods.
The Fed. is committed to higher inflation. They think that once it arrives that they can control it. The problem is that yes, it can be controlled, only the tool to control it cannot be employed....because it'll blow-up the economy into a monster deflation.
Anything really with an inelastic demand curve and elastic prices will work well.
jog on
duc
I had GDX quite a few years ago, I liked it, but as usual sold out too early with a small profit. Should have held longer.Gold....
Yes gold miners: safety and stability..not
look at rrl and arv : 2 of my stunning losers of this month;
Got seriously kicked
Ncm managed ok but just
i would recommend an etf
i believe GDX on the asx is a decent gold miners etf.
Not so much safety and stability its the hedge against inflation if you don't think inflation then don't buy gold.Gold....
Yes gold miners: safety and stability..not
look at rrl and arv : 2 of my stunning losers of this month;
Got seriously kicked
Ncm managed ok but just
i would recommend an etf
i believe GDX on the asx is a decent gold miners etf.
Something I'll caution there is that as prices rise, so does the cost of new supply.(iv) Energy to a point. If prices rise past a point 'X', lots of supply can come in.
Something I'll caution there is that as prices rise, so does the cost of new supply.
There are considerable commodity inputs to any large energy project and the other big cost is return on capital. If materials costs rise, and interest rates (as a proxy for expected return to investors) rise, then so does the cost of production from the new oil field, power station or whatever.
Quite a few were rather spectacularly burned with that one in the 1970's and 80'st. Relatively small electric utilities tripped up in all sorts of places around the world and, infamously at the time, Exxon spent more than US $1 billion before walking away from an unconventional oil project in the US , the estimated cost to complete it having blown out to $5.5 billion and rising as of 1982 when they pulled the pin. Those figures are actual $ at the time, not adjusted for inflation over the past 39 years which would put them far higher in "real terms" today.
History makes me cautious on this one. The cheapest time to build a dam or drill a well is when nobody else wants to build a dam or drill a well. Once the idea catches on, prices soar for every input - materials, specialist skilled labour, drilling rigs, etc plus the investors tend to start wanting a return too.
That's not to say nothing can ever be built, just that as the commodity price goes up the cost of building a big project on the supply side tends to go up too.
Not so much safety and stability its the hedge against inflation if you don't think inflation then don't buy gold.
EFT's don't give as much bang for your buck.
My choice of gold miners
NCM is OK
NST is now a monster with the merger
EVN is my first choice
But for a 20% + bounce you would want a mid cap.
RRL I am still holding I feel it is the one to be in. They might of paid a bit much for Tropicana and shares have been punished but I still see them as undervalued. (I am at a lose ATM brought a bit to early)
GOR looked good as well.
Just my thoughts take them with a grain of salt.
True,true ..Something I'll caution there is that as prices rise, so does the cost of new supply.
There are considerable commodity inputs to any large energy project and the other big cost is return on capital. If materials costs rise, and interest rates (as a proxy for expected return to investors) rise, then so does the cost of production from the new oil field, power station or whatever.
Quite a few were rather spectacularly burned with that one in the 1970's and 80'st. Relatively small electric utilities tripped up in all sorts of places around the world and, infamously at the time, Exxon spent more than US $1 billion before walking away from an unconventional oil project in the US , the estimated cost to complete it having blown out to $5.5 billion and rising as of 1982 when they pulled the pin. Those figures are actual $ at the time, not adjusted for inflation over the past 39 years which would put them far higher in "real terms" today.
History makes me cautious on this one. The cheapest time to build a dam or drill a well is when nobody else wants to build a dam or drill a well. Once the idea catches on, prices soar for every input - materials, specialist skilled labour, drilling rigs, etc plus the investors tend to start wanting a return too.
That's not to say nothing can ever be built, just that as the commodity price goes up the cost of building a big project on the supply side tends to go up too.
A simpler way to look at it is that if someone today calculates that a project needs $100 per barrel to be profitable, then most likely they've based that on present day costs.Morning Mr Smurf,
Point taken re. profitability and probable losses on capital down the road should such a scenario play out. My point is that as you have already indicated, this error seems to be repeated consistently and not just by the oil industry.
If oil prices returned to the $150/barrel level, I suggest that there would be huge swathes of capital attracted to the extraction of oil, increasing supply. Whether an economic return could be earned would depend on in part the continuing trend higher in inflationary pressures and demand at those prices and the timeframes involved and whether alternatives could be accelerated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?