The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

[raja]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

if interest rates hit 20% - something which hasn'nt occured ever in the United States as far as I know, do you really think nothing will have happened to justify this?

Being a financial neophyte, I derive a large part of my thinking from a mix of sources. EJ predicts a discount rate above 20% for about a year period.
So, to answer your question about what will happen . . . what he said.

But I don't see what you're getting at with this question. Can you please say what you think will happen and why it will scuttle my plan?

Certainly the USA is not Zimbabwe, but then again it is equally foolish to think that the USA is somehow immune to reaping the rewards of its actions.

It is precisely the reaping that will enable me to make a profit. If there is no reaping, my plan won't work.
In other words, high inflation, high interest rates, big spread, big profit.

As for your reaping interest - you don't get to both renew and lock in a rate. You can do 1 year Tbills, or you can lock in a rate with a long bond, but you cannot do both at once.

Perhaps I need to explain again . . . .
I buy short term T-bills (either 3- or 6-month), which are then continuously reinvested. When interest rates reach a high level, I either sell the T-bills or let them mature. Then, I take the money and purchase a 30-year bond locking in a a high rate.
At what point am I doing "both at once"?

what I am suggesting is to look to existing financial instruments based on the actions you are proposing to understand what risk you are taking on.

The two financial instruments involved in my proposal are the equity loan and Treasury securities, both of which I have examined and have some familiarity with. Since I found no great risk in what I am proposing, I was hoping someone with more experience would be able to point out something I had missed.

Ultimately it is your money, do with it what you will

That's a relief. I thought I had to do what EJ said

[raja]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

In the early 1980s you could buy a 30 yr treasury bond in the low teens. Get this: it wasn't callable! They won't make that mistake again.

Dang it, Fred. You found a chink in my plan.:eek:

For it to at least break even, my plan requires that I collect high interest rates for at least long enough to recoup my initial loses. And even calling the bond in some years later would still spoil my wonderful dream of clearing 15% for 25 years.

I checked the Fed website, and all bonds now are not callable. You are suggesting they will change that policy in the future.

How might that work?

They would issue 30-year bonds at high rates, and then after interest rates fall back to lower levels, they would say here's your principal back, good bye?

Is there a history of this?
Is there any way to get some idea about how long they will wait before calling in the bonds?

Seems like it would piss off a lot of people if they called in high-paying bonds after only a few years . . . .

[zoog]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

I checked the Fed website, and all bonds now are not callable. You are suggesting they will change that policy in the future.

. . .

Is there a history of this?
Is there any way to get some idea about how long they will wait before calling in the bonds?

Seems like it would piss off a lot of people if they called in high-paying bonds after only a few years . . . .

Trying to piece this together from the treasury website....

For certain bonds issued before 1985, the U.S. Treasury reserves the right to stop paying interest before the bonds mature. When the Treasury "calls" a bond, it stops paying interest on the date of the call, before the maturity date.
View a list of bonds called from 2000 to the present.

Searched for a couple of the bond ID numbers listed, and got this:

January 14, 2000 The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2000, of the 8-1/4% Treasury Bonds of 2000-05, issued May 15, 1975, due May 15, 2005 (CUSIP No. 912810BU1). There are $4,224 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $2,047 million* are held by private investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2000, will cease to earn interest.

January 14, 2005
The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2005, of the 10% Treasury Bonds of 2005-10, originally issued May 15, 1980, due May 15, 2010 (CUSIP No. 912810CP1). There are $2,987 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $1,811 million are held by private investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2005 will stop earning interest.

Only two examples is not enough to make a definitive case, but both of these were called after 25 years.

[raja]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

zoog,

Thanks for doing some research on this.
I guess Fred was wrong . . . these bonds were callable.

Some nice interest rates:

November 15, 2007	30 years	912810DB1	10.375%
November 15, 2006	30 years	912810CY2	14.000%
May 15, 2006	30 years	912810CV8	13.875%
November 15, 2005	30 years	912810CS5	12.750%
May 15, 2005	30 years	912810CP1	10.000%
February 15, 2005	30 years	912810CM8	11.750%
November 15, 2004	30 years	912810CK2	10.375%

25 year maturity is not as good as 30 years, but it's not bad, either. Early maturity is not a dealbreaker by any means for my plan, but I'll have to add the threat of callability to my risk analysis. Who know what the government will do if they're paying out 25% interest . . . .

[Guest]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Raja -

Here's an alternative idea - why not take that $100K you are looking at extracting from your property, and invest it 25% in each of these four 800 pound gorilla stocks instead:

1) BHP Billiton - largest natural resources company in the world - it's so diversified it's like a global juggernaut. As 1/3 of the world industrializes in the next decade (biggest global trend in 40 years), this stock alone will probably return you 500% - 1000%.

They have the largest Uranium mine in the world, and as of two or three days ago that same Olympic Dam mine is apparently now also the largest gold mine in Australia. This is by far the safest gold mining stock in the world, because they are in every other commodity concievable! They have operations in about 30+ countries, and mine every last commodity you can dream of.

2) Schlumberger - largest global oil services company in the world - another juggernaut. This one will even outperform BHP Billiton. As the energy markets tighten globally in the next decade, this stock will be the single most senior stock for global energy exploration. They have the very best exploration technology - at the cutting edge, and they have a superb history as a company consistently in the leadership of energy services. With a tightening energy market set to be the main story for the next twenty years, this is a mega-cap, globally diversified, and a very safe play on the entire energy theme.

3) Alcatel Alstom - France's flagship global leader in nuclear technology - covers every aspect of nuclear plant building with a huge list of global customers. James Dines predicts China will not need to build hundreds of nuclear power plants in the next twenty years - he claims they will wake up in the next few years to the need to build thousands. This man has been correct far more than he's ever been incorrect. The estimation of nuclear plants required by just about every industrialized country in the world is due to have a very harsh wake-up call soon. This company will be soaring with work contracted out a decade in advance.

4) Siemens - German engineering juggernaut with easily as broad a global network of markets as Alstom. They will be everywhere, as one of the truly global engineering firms winning contracts the world over as the global build out of the industrialising world gathers momentum.

Just these four stocks alone would probably turn your 100K into 500K in a decade. In severe market washouts these stocks are so big and diversified they offer incomparable safety, yet have powerful growth ahead of them. Each one of these companies is a global leader in materials, mining, oil exploration, large scale engineering, and nuclear technology.

I look at your plan to constantly roll over short term US treasury debt, and wonder why you are being so defensive, and why are you making a play within the world's most compromised currency? There is an entrenched recollection from a previous era (now ending!) that treasuries offer safety and fabulous returns - and that very savvy moves were made by those timing the purchase of the long bond perfectly.

But bonds are possibly one of the most fraught investments for the next decade, which will be a highly inflationary decade - if for no other reason than that energy will put a gigantic squeeze on the world. How can long term debt thrive in a world where energy shortages are exerting a constant and increasing squeeze? That is the big, big cue from here out to 2020. With energy squeezing global markets, everything energy related will have a considerable wind at it's back, while everything dependent on long term debt plays will be faced with treacherous and shifting currents.

The global energy crunch presents you with a vast opportunity - and the maxim that offense is the best form of defence carries a great deal of relevance in this particular case as we look out to 2020. I think you could make a half million dollars with this strategy. Of course the dollar will evaporate, but the global energy crisis that is coming is unstoppable - do some wide reading around, find the most senior and reputable sources you can refer to for hard intel on what's going to happen to energy, and you'll agree - these investments will far outrun your defensive bond strategy.

Just my two cents.


EDIT: Breaking News - BHP raises Olympic Dam estimate for Copper, Uranium and Gold by 75%!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...RrQ&refer=home

[friendly_jacek]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

As I've talked about many times - in this situation you don't have many choices to protect your savings:

1) Move money out of the currency in question. Check - I'm doing that

Note you likely need to move the money out of the country as well - historically devaluations and currency controls go hand in hand. Bank failures and nationalization are also present. Thus having a US account with yen in it is still dangerous for several reasons.

This is what I did several months ago and liquidated all few remaining US equities and mutual funds I had. However, when I track the new global mutual fund (highly rated, vanguard one) I have in my 401k and compare to the previous large stock US equity I used to own, now the global under performs slightly, even though dolar slid several percent since. The global fund doesn't hedge currency as far as I know.
I suspect that US equity valuations will adjust them self up by market mechanisms as the value of of USD go down. I conclude that you don't necessarily have to own international stocks to protect from sliding USD. Bonds are another issue.

[qwerty]

GoldMoney vs BullionVault

Thanks RickB - Is retrieval of funds to non-US bank accounts the only issue?

It seems that BullionVault will SWIFT wire your proceeds or cash balance from their account to one of yours. So if you have a bank account in, say London, they will do that for you.

One point in favor of BullionVault is that you can chose NY, London or Zurich, whereas GoldMoney is (just outside) London.

I think that diversification out of London is useful.

Are there any other key differences between the two that you see?

I think the main thing is the quality of the auditing, the way the legal title to the gold is held (including the quality and security of their online databases - no paper certicates to prove you have the gold remember*), and the security of the vault.

(* From my experience of database backup procedures in the investment industry, I'd say the integrity and resilience of their database would be my prime concern)

[raja]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Lukester,

I really appreciate your reply and suggestions . . . .

Let me break my response into two parts: one dealing with commodities in general, and the second referring to my investment scheme. I'll deal with the former here:

In addition to my other investments, I would like to invest in some commodities, but I'm a little hesitant about energy. My fear stems from a perhaps simplistic idea that the world could be heading for some global slowdown, and the demand for commodities will slacken if that occurs.

I am relatively new to investing, and part of my impetus to become involved was my reading about the Asian crisis in 1987. Many experts way more knowledgeable than me talked about narrowly avoiding a "global financial meltdown".

If there was a "global financial meltdown", it seems likely that demand for energy would decline. Of course, if the meltdown was only in the US, that wouldn't be the case, because Asia and Europe might still be chugging along.

Thus, I am hesitant to take your energy stock suggestions . . . but open to hear counter reasoning to what I've said.

However, one thing that does seem likely is that, whatever happens, people will continue to eat. That's why I'm thinking that agricultural ETFs would be a good investment. I mention ETFs, because I have this perhaps-mistaken impression that other forms of trading in commodities -- futures and options -- are somehow too difficult and risky for amateurs like me.

So here is what I'm wondering . . . .

Commodities right now are high. There is an looming stock market crash predicted by many. Is this the time to buy any commodity?
Will commodities go down with the crash (if there is one)? Or will some go down, and others not? Or will commodities rise when stocks plummet?

I am hoping that those with more experience and knowledge than I can chime in and share their wisdom about the likelihood of different scenarios . . . . .

[Guest]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Raja -

You will need to start doing your own reading and research of these investment themes, to gain a personal conviction of those trends which have the most solid prospects to last for a decade.

I can only tell you that one or two of the themes I described above are not only very real, but also very large.

Making bets that depend upon what happens within the USD, and particularly bets on fixed income vehicles in USD, are bets which introduce a lot of uncertainty to your investment.

As mentioned somewhere previously, "inflation will be the Jehova's Witness' pit bull, which you incautiously opened your front door to, and which is now in the house, and gnawing at your ankle". Rolling over short term treasuries in the hopes of defending yourself from the pit bull via a rising coupon is not IMHO reliable.

Allowing the uncertainty of the US dollar (and fixed income within that USD is even less good!) investments to compromise your portfolio's ability to fight back is not the only option available to you, and so it should be avoided if possible.

[raja]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Lukester,

Here is the second part of my reply, dealing with my equity-loan/T-bill plan . . . .

I understand your point about inflation and how it might affect debt. Also, I agree that commodities can escape inflationary effects, because they are things and not fiat.

However, what you may be missing in our discussion is the distinction between short- and longterm debt.

There's no question that the value of long-term bonds will suffer during inflationary times. But during a period of high inflation, one can buy a new longterm bond near the top, and lock in a high interest rate for a number years. This is my plan -- to borrow money, rollover it over in short term T-bills until the interest rates are high, then lock in a 30-year bond.

The ultimate question is whether my plan of locking in a high-interest long-term bond is more or less profitable than yours of buying energy stocks. Let's look at that . . . .

Just these four stocks alone would probably turn your 100K into 500K in a decade.

If we accept your estimate of stock price appreciation, you plan would be probably somewhat better than mine . . . but not necessarily.

Using EJ's prediction of where interest rates could go, it's possible that I could lock in a T-bond at 24%, giving me a spread of 17.5% over the cost of the loan. This would mean turning $100,000 into $500,000 in a decade . . . just as much profit as your stocks . . . at far lower risk.
(I agree that the differential tax treatment of the two plans would lower this profit somewhat, but for sake of discussion let's not get too detailed.)

Now, the risk in my plan is that I might not be able to lock in at the top, and would have to accept a lower profit. How low depends on how close to the top I get.
On the other hand, with energy stocks, there might be a global economic crisis, and I could lose half my investment as the demand for commodities falls.

Under different scenarios, each of our plans could best the other . . . but in your plan there is the possibility of catastrophic loss . . . .

In severe market washouts these stocks are so big and diversified they offer incomparable safety, yet have powerful growth ahead of them. Each one of these companies is a global leader in materials, mining, oil exploration, large scale engineering, and nuclear technology.

I don't have the information to evaluate this. Do you happen to know how these stocks did in previous stock crashes?
With stocks, one can lose large amounts of value . . . whereas with Treasuries one can suffer lower interest earnings, but never (nominal) principal. (Both stocks and bonds can lose real principal.)

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Lukester,

Here is the second part of my reply, dealing with my equity-loan/T-bill plan . . . .

I understand your point about inflation and how it might affect debt. Also, I agree that commodities can escape inflationary effects, because they are things and not fiat.

However, what you may be missing in our discussion is the distinction between short- and longterm debt.

There's no question that the value of long-term bonds will suffer during inflationary times. But during a period of high inflation, one can buy a new longterm bond near the top, and lock in a high interest rate for a number years. This is my plan -- to borrow money, rollover it over in short term T-bills until the interest rates are high, then lock in a 30-year bond.

The ultimate question is whether my plan of locking in a high-interest long-term bond is more or less profitable than yours of buying energy stocks. Let's look at that . . . .

If we accept your estimate of stock price appreciation, you plan would be probably somewhat better than mine . . . but not necessarily.

Using EJ's prediction of where interest rates could go, it's possible that I could lock in a T-bond at 24%, giving me a spread of 17.5% over the cost of the loan. This would mean turning $100,000 into $500,000 in a decade . . . just as much profit as your stocks . . . at far lower risk.
(I agree that the differential tax treatment of the two plans would lower this profit somewhat, but for sake of discussion let's not get too detailed.)

Now, the risk in my plan is that I might not be able to lock in at the top, and would have to accept a lower profit. How low depends on how close to the top I get.
On the other hand, with energy stocks, there might be a global economic crisis, and I could lose half my investment as the demand for commodities falls.

Under different scenarios, each of our plans could best the other . . . but in your plan there is the possibility of catastrophic loss . . . .

I don't have the information to evaluate this. Do you happen to know how these stocks did in previous stock crashes?
With stocks, one can lose large amounts of value . . . whereas with Treasuries one can suffer lower interest earnings, but never (nominal) principal. (Both stocks and bonds can lose real principal.)

Raja,

I think there is a fatal flaw in bold above, in that how does anyone know what is "near the top." If one can determine that, I presume one can just as well determine what prices are near the bottoms. With that sort of skill, the notion "buy low, sell high" becomes a piece of cake, so to speak.

[raja]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

how does anyone know what is "near the top." If one can determine that, I presume one can just as well determine what prices are near the bottoms. With that sort of skill, the notion "buy low, sell high" becomes a piece of cake, so to speak.

All investment requires some bet on whether value is appreciating or depreciating . . . .

Granted, there are degrees . . . .
With some investments, we can count on a gradual upswing over time, and don't have to worry about precipitous upswings and downturns . . . like stocks, bonds, gold and currencies. Oh wait, that's in the other universe! :eek:

In my mind, there is no difference between investing and gambling . . . it's all a casino.
There important question is level of risk.

Now . . . are you telling me that Lukester's proposal is less risky than mine?
If so, then I must disagree with you.
With stocks, the value of one's investment can drop precipitously . . . and many people are predicting that very thing in the near future.
With T-bills, principal is never lost, and rising rates in step with inflation mellow the effects of inflation.

What you say is true, that hitting the top is not a piece of cake.
One never knows how high something will go, or when a downturn is not just a temporary move, but the beginning of the fall.
However, isn't this true of most investments?
Have you got gold (or other investments that you think may rise and later decline)?
Are you planning to sell near the top?
If so, would you say this is a fatal flaw? How is that different from what I'm doing?

The reality is that we do the best we can to predict the future.
It's not a piece of cake, but I've heard that it is possible to make money with investing.
Paying attention and not being too greedy help.
Yes, I hope to buy the bond near the top. If I miss by 10% either way, I'll still consider it a damn good investment.

Lukester's suggestion may be a good investment, but it's a little too risky for me, until I get more information on how these stocks might fare in a crash.

[Guest]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Raja -

It's easy to check how these mega cap stocks might fare in a crash. Just look them up!

America Movil (monopoly on central and south american cellular owned by Carlos Slim)
Alstom (global leader nuclear technology)
Range Resources (quite small midcap - mistake on this list - delete)
BHP Billiton (global leader in mining)
Schlumberger (global leader in oil services)
Areva (French national nuclear technology co. may merge with Alstom to become the 2000 pound gorilla of nuclear industry)
Bunge (global leader in grains and fertilizer)
Siemens (global leader in engineering)

Then Read Jim Rogers on the commodity bull market to last a decade more.

If you tend to believe his thesis - read a lot more about it, and about the inflection point being crossed just in this past five years, in the development of the countries that are driving Roger's commodity boom.

The above set of stocks are about as distributed a risk as you can obtain within the interested sectors Rogers discusseswhile at the same time packing a far greater punch than a hodgepodge of mutual funds.

If you bought five mutual funds in these general spaces your returns would considerably underperform this set of mega-cap stocks, without significantly increased diversification safety. These stocks are already well diversified within each of their markets. You can further distribute risk by entering into a tightly controlled dollar cost averaging into all of these, spaced over 18 months, but given the sheer size, diversification and prospects of these mega stocks that may be caution bordering excessive.

If you cannot stomach the risk such a basket of stocks entail, then you should not be in stocks. No use yearning after their returns if you reject the risk.

Before you go putting your extracted equity into short term inflation indexed US treasuries, make sure you've read through John Williams' SHADOWSTATS to get a full sense of the extent your inflation indexing will be increasingly under-reported by our glorious government.

Also worth checking out any number of other (better than treasury!) options, such as Everbank MARKETSAFE CD's indexed to diversified baskets of foreign currencies (which will also hugely devalue relative to gold BTW) but which will at least not be totally at the mercy of US Gov. CPI lies governing their interest rate yield!

Yet another option are Everbanks MARKETSAFE instruments indexed to the price of Gold and Silver! You buy them, they go up in lockstep to the rise in the metal, and if the metal goes down, your original principal is guaranteed.

There may be a lot more research you could do here? One of those MARKETSAFE gold indexed CD's may return you 200% in the next five years, while securing your principal, and you are looking only at buying short term US treasuries? Why?

Why not start looking into everything else you can do!?

[GRG55]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

...In my mind, there is no difference between investing and gambling . . . it's all a casino...

My father had the same view. He spent his life accumulating land, mostly farmland. Now we all wish he hadn't sold it all when he retired. ;)

[FRED]

Re: The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

Dang it, Fred. You found a chink in my plan.:eek:

For it to at least break even, my plan requires that I collect high interest rates for at least long enough to recoup my initial loses. And even calling the bond in some years later would still spoil my wonderful dream of clearing 15% for 25 years.

I checked the Fed website, and all bonds now are not callable. You are suggesting they will change that policy in the future.

How might that work?

They would issue 30-year bonds at high rates, and then after interest rates fall back to lower levels, they would say here's your principal back, good bye?

Is there a history of this?
Is there any way to get some idea about how long they will wait before calling in the bonds?

Seems like it would piss off a lot of people if they called in high-paying bonds after only a few years . . . .

Treasury notes and bonds are callable:

U.S. Treasury Bills
•		Treasury bills (T-Bills) are auctioned weekly with three month (90 days) and six month (180 days) maturities. Bills with one year (360 days) maturities are auctioned quarterly. The Treasury dictates the number of issues to auction under ceiling limits set by Congress.
•		Interest payment calculations - Interest on T-Bills is calculated using an actual/360 formula. Interest is paid at maturity and accrues as if the year has 360 days and the month has 30 day.
•		Call provisions - Because of their short term nature, T-Bills are not callable.

U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds
•		U.S. Treasury notes (T-Notes) and bonds (T-Bonds) are securities with coupons which pay interest semiannually and return principal at maturity. Typically the maturity for notes is between two and ten years, while the maturities for bonds are more than ten years.
•		The Treasury is required to announce its intent to call four months before a potential call date.

So some day you may get a note like this:

To: Joe Sixpack
Subject: Calling 10 Year Treasury Bonds issued by the Treasury 2010 @ 15%
Date: Jul 21, 2015

This is to notify you that your 10 year treasury bond issued in 2010 yielding 15% will be called in four months. You may reinvest in a new 10 year bond at the current market rate. Thanks for playing.

Of course, the "market" rate will be less than 15%.

No, the bondholders will not be happy. But then when gold confiscation was no picnic, either.