This Little-Known Rule Could Send Gold to $10,000

squarepusher

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,940
http://www.kitco.com/ind/stansberry/dec022009.html



This Little-Known Rule Could Send Gold to $10,000


By Porter Stansberry

Dec 2 2009 9:10AM
www.dailywealth.com


It's one of those numbers that's so unbelievable you have to actually think about it for a while...

Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. And that's not counting any additional deficit spending, which is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion.

Put the two numbers together. Then ask yourself, how in the world can the Treasury borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year? That's an amount equal to nearly 30% of our entire GDP. And we're the world's biggest economy. Where will the money come from?

How did we end up with so much short-term debt? Like most entities that have far too much debt – whether subprime borrowers, GM, Fannie, or GE – the U.S. Treasury has tried to minimize its interest burden by borrowing for short durations and then "rolling over" the loans when they come due. As they say on Wall Street, "a rolling debt collects no moss."

What they mean is, as long as you can extend the debt, you have no problem. Unfortunately, that leads folks to take on ever greater amounts of debt... at ever shorter durations... at ever lower interest rates. Sooner or later, the creditors wake up and ask themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that's when the trouble starts. Interest rates go up dramatically. Funding costs soar. The party is over. Bankruptcy is next.

When governments go bankrupt, it's called a "default." Currency speculators figured out how to accurately predict when a country would default. Two well-known economists – Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti – published the secret formula in a 1999 academic paper. The formula is called the Greenspan-Guidotti rule.

The rule states: To avoid a default, countries should maintain hard currency reserves equal to at least 100% of their short-term foreign debt maturities. The world's largest money-management firm, PIMCO, explains the rule this way: "The minimum benchmark of reserves equal to at least 100% of short-term external debt is known as the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. Greenspan-Guidotti is perhaps the single concept of reserve adequacy that has the most adherents and empirical support."

The principle behind the rule is simple. If you can't pay off all of your foreign debts in the next 12 months, you're a terrible credit risk. Speculators are going to target your bonds and your currency, making it impossible to refinance your debts. A default is assured.

So how does America rank on the Greenspan-Guidotti scale? It's a guaranteed default.

The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currency in reserve. It has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (it is the world's largest holder). At current dollar values, it's worth around $300 billion. The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels. At current dollar prices, that's roughly $58 billion worth of oil. And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. So altogether... that's around $500 billion of reserves. Our short-term foreign debts are far bigger.

According to the U.S. Treasury, $2 trillion worth of debt will mature in the next 12 months. So looking only at short-term debt, we know the Treasury will have to finance at least $2 trillion worth of maturing debt in the next 12 months. That might not cause a crisis if we were still funding our national debt internally. But since 1985, we've been a net debtor to the world. Today, foreigners own 44% of all our debts, which means we owe foreign creditors at least $880 billion in the next 12 months – an amount far larger than our reserves.

Keep in mind, this only covers our existing debts. The Office of Management and Budget is predicting a $1.5 trillion budget deficit over the next year. That puts our total funding requirements on the order of $3.5 trillion over the next 12 months.

So... where will the money come from? Total domestic savings in the U.S. are only around $600 billion annually. Even if we all put every penny of our savings into U.S. Treasury debt, we're still going to come up nearly $3 trillion short. That's an annual funding requirement equal to roughly 40% of GDP.

Where is the money going to come from? From our foreign creditors? Not according to Greenspan-Guidotti. And not according to the Indian or Russian central banks, which have stopped buying Treasury bills and begun to buy enormous amounts of gold. The Indians bought 200 metric tonnes this month. Sources in Russia say the central bank there will double its gold reserves.

So where will the money come from? The printing press. The Federal Reserve has already monetized nearly $2 trillion worth of Treasury debt and mortgage debt. This weakens the value of the dollar and devalues our existing Treasury bonds. Sooner or later, our creditors will face a stark choice: Hold our bonds and continue to see the value diminish slowly, or try to escape to gold and see the value of their U.S. bonds plummet.

One thing they're not going to do is buy more of our debt. Which central banks will abandon the dollar next? Brazil, Korea, and Chile. These are the three largest central banks that own the least amount of gold. None owns even 1% of its total reserves in gold.

I examined these issues in much greater detail in the most recent issue of my newsletter, Porter Stansberry's Investment Advisory. Coincidentally, the New York Times repeated my warnings – nearly word for word – a few weeks ago. They didn't mention Greenspan-Guidotti, however... It's a real secret of international speculators.

My readers know that Greenspan-Guidotti means the U.S. is likely to have a severe currency crisis within the next two years. How high will gold go during this crisis? Nobody can say for sure. We've never been in the situation we are now. The numbers have never been so large and dangerous. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to see gold at $10,000 an ounce by 2012. Make sure you own some.

Good investing,

Porter Stansberry
 
Wow.
Is there an oppossing opinon on this? I'd really like to hear it. Is there any possibility at all of a disaster not happening?
 
Good article. Is the author claiming that gold will go to $10,000 because the $3.5 trillion will be printed?
 
somethings gotta give... eventually.

something is in the works... likely has been for awhile... to mitigate this or reduce the debt somehow. don't ask me how or by whom.. i don't know. maybe the stock market manipulation is building reserves or paying off debt by crushing the shorts. they can change the rules at whim. wars will start in earnest.

there is so much at stake worldwide for them not to. gold bugs love this stuff and i can see why.
 
Wow.
Is there an oppossing opinon on this? I'd really like to hear it. Is there any possibility at all of a disaster not happening?

Taxes. The government will tax the shit out of us. We'll the pay the debt.
 
So we have $2 trillion in debt which matures this year. If the people who currently hold that debt (those Treasury notes) decide to take that money and buy a new Treasury note with that money, then our externally held short term debt does not change. Nor does the internally held debt. The $1.5 trillion in estimated new debt is another story of course.

As of September 2009, $3.4 trillion worth of US debt was foreign held- or about 28% of our $12 trillion debt (according to the debt clock). If the percentages of holdings are roughly the same then we have about $570 billion worth of foreign held debt coming due this year. Not all of that is short term. Add in the $1.5 trillion of new debt and we need to borrow another $424 billion from foreign sources this year or a total of just under $1 trillion. Again if the current debt is rolled over by the holders to new debt we need some $450 billion of new borrowing for the year from overseas sources. That would raise total foreign held debt to about $4 trillion. Again, not all of this debt is short term.

The article quotes some $500 billion in US reserves.

As of June 2008, the Treasury Department http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg116.htm reported that 24% of foreign held debt was short term (long term being defined as more than one year in term). This would make short term foreign debt about $500 billion by the end of this year after all the new borrowing (assuming that current ratios of both foreign ownership and the short to long term debt ratios stay where they were) - and according to the article, pretty much what we have in reserves. So that would keep us in technical compliance with the rule.

The rule states: To avoid a default, countries should maintain hard currency reserves equal to at least 100% of their short-term foreign debt maturities. The world's largest money-management firm, PIMCO, explains the rule this way: "The minimum benchmark of reserves equal to at least 100% of short-term external debt is known as the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. Greenspan-Guidotti is perhaps the single concept of reserve adequacy that has the most adherents and empirical support."

This is not to say that the rising debt is a good thing nor does it say that the levels of debt are good for the future of the country.
 
Last edited:
The only solution that will work is to withdraw the military world wide, close all foreign bases, cut all social programs to the bone, remove all regulation from industry, and get unemployed to work, either building up our national defense or get our manufacturing base going again with all the cheap labor. Oh yeah, and End the Fed.

What are the chances of all those things happening? I'm not convinced that the chances are non-zero.
 
or we could just default. let's just default. all in favor raise your hand.
 
or we could just default. let's just default. all in favor raise your hand.

You know what is funny, is all day I have had this thought of the computer game Civilization 4, and I can just picture a little Obama character saying "We default on all our loans and we back this up with nuclear weapons!"

It's certainly possible, and if I didn't beleive that the absolute destruction of the U.S. was the goal I would even say likely. Or maybe they will wreck us BY defaulting and goading the Chinese to invade...
 
The only solution that will work is to withdraw the military world wide, close all foreign bases, cut all social programs to the bone, remove all regulation from industry, and get unemployed to work, either building up our national defense or get our manufacturing base going again with all the cheap labor. Oh yeah, and End the Fed.

What are the chances of all those things happening? I'm not convinced that the chances are non-zero.

Plus, probably also defaulting on our debt and then backing up our currency with gold. Because, if we did not, no one would trust the dollar.
 
get unemployed to work, either building up our national defense or get our manufacturing base going again with all the cheap labor.

"Building up our national defense" would require more spending, which would require either more printing or more taxes (as a nation in default would not be able to borrow money).
 
Taxes. The government will tax the shit out of us. We'll the pay the debt.

We're quickly reaching the point of no return where that will become mathematically impossible without an explosion of economic productivity (which is unlikely to coincide with greater taxes ;)), are we not?

EDIT after thinking about it some more: No matter how bad our government's finances get, you always hear the age-old excuse that some other countries have even worse debt ratios. :rolleyes: One of the reasons this is even possible is because private citizens hold a lot of government debt, and that remains pretty consistent across countries and governments. After all, governments are notoriously bad at keeping a budget and always have been, and they don't even really need foreign lenders to help them do this. :p Has anyone considered whether the US government might default on domestically-held bonds (etc.) but tax us an insane amount to uphold foreign loans, especially those held by foreign governments and major banks? I guess it depends on how much of our country's collapse is the result of stupidity and how much is deliberate, but it seems like it's the kind of thing a desperate international debtor government would do to avoid both war and immediate collapse (even though nobody would ever trust government bonds again). Are there any historical precedents for any governments doing this?
 
Last edited:
or we could just default. let's just default. all in favor raise your hand.

There are only two options: default, or give up our sovereignty. If the plan is to default, then why not keep the sham going as long as we can. Obviously that would the smart thing to do. Buy up as much of the world's resources as we can with worthless paper before they figure out they've been had.
 
There are only two options: default, or give up our sovereignty. If the plan is to default, then why not keep the sham going as long as we can. Obviously that would the smart thing to do. Buy up as much of the world's resources as we can with worthless paper before they figure out they've been had.

ssshhhh, don't tell anyone. ;)
 
there are only two options: Default, or give up our sovereignty. If the plan is to default, then why not keep the sham going as long as we can. Obviously that would the smart thing to do. Buy up as much of the world's resources as we can with worthless paper before they figure out they've been had.
ssshhhh

you're giving away our secret...

o and seriously though; buy hard assets.
 
There are only two options: default, or give up our sovereignty. If the plan is to default, then why not keep the sham going as long as we can. Obviously that would the smart thing to do. Buy up as much of the world's resources as we can with worthless paper before they figure out they've been had.

Deliberately keeping the game going long enough knowing they're going to default wouldn't exactly look good after-the-fact though, and it'd make other countries (one hell of a coalition) more liable to declare war. That's almost the very worst thing they can do right now (short of monetizing the debt), unless their goal is to see the US in shambles...which, you know, it could very well be.

The libertarian in me screams that the government should simply declare bankruptcy ASAP (but without doing what you suggest ;)): It's the government's debt, not mine, and not yours, and not anyone's children's. Like any default, it still runs the risk of a bunch of pissed of governments trying to come collect...just without, you know, deliberately provoking them to do so. ;) Such a default would likely [but not necessarily] result in a dissolved US government, with a new union between states possible...which of course means such a default isn't going to happen, because the federal government isn't the type to fade away gracefully: It's the type to go down kicking and screaming and dragging as many other people down with it as possible.

The not-strictly-libertarian gremlin I keep stuffed in a dark corner of the recesses of my mind keeps saying that if the feds cut almost all spending ASAP, they can still pay back the debt by continuing to tax us as they have been. That's technically an option too, but realistically, I don't see it happening before it's too late.

Realistically speaking, unless we start to see the states start making some serious waves, I think the US government is going to do almost exactly as you say: Keep the game running as long as possible, but rather than default openly, monetize the debt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top