11/18/2011 12:20 PM ET|
In scary market, miners show mettle
With risks running high, there aren't many safe places to invest your money right now. But large-cap gold miners look strong -- and here's why.
While I watch stock and bond markets around the world closely, I have found that the ups and downs we have seen lately -- and we have seen a lot of them -- are not really changing anything about what I do as an investor.
The reason is that I am not particularly invested in the stock market, other than Microsoft (MSFT, news), some large-cap miners, and a handful of smaller (and riskier) exploration and mining-services companies. (Microsoft owns and publishes MSN Money.)
I continue to think of stocks generically as completely uninteresting because of the economic problems we are facing. And yet you can't really be short, betting they will fall, thanks to all the money printing that has gone on and the fact that the Fed could launch QE3 at any moment.
That's not to say there aren't many companies in corporate America that are attractively priced, because there are. Microsoft is my favorite example, but there are others. However, given all the risks that we face, it just seems to me that there will be a far better time down the road, probably during the funding crisis, to allocate money to those kinds of ideas. (That's the crisis I have warned will hit as governments find themselves unable to borrow more money.)
Besides, between where we are now and the point where we actually have to face -- and start fixing -- our problems, I can't see how anything will do better than companies I expect to benefit from more money printing, although I could be wrong about that.
Discovering the path of least resistance
While I'm on the subject of attractive stocks, the shares of large-cap gold miners do seem perkier, a behavior change that began around July. That is not to say that on any given day they behave exactly the way I (or others) think they ought to, but they have been trading higher, and I think I know why.
One of the reasons I own the big miners that I do (read "There's gold in mining stocks yet") is because last year I began to see an enormous buildup of cash on their balance sheets -- and the potential for that to escalate. I thought that maybe that would make people bullish, but it really didn't because something else was holding folks back. That something was the fact that most people expected the price of gold in the future to be much lower than it is today.
The reason future price expectations matter so much is because of the way miners are valued by stock analysts. At the risk of getting too technical, let's say I have a mine with 10 years of proven reserves, producing 1 million ounces per year, my all-in costs are $900 an ounce, and the current gold price is $1,700. In that scenario, my business is making $800 million a year pretax.
Now those earnings may rise or fall based on whether my production grows or shrinks, or my reserves may last longer or run out sooner. But if we think that in two years the spot price will be only $1,000 an ounce and stay there, then it doesn't make sense to pay too big of a multiple of today's earnings to buy the stock.
On the other hand, if we decide that the spot price might stay where it is, or fall just a little, or even rise, then those future earnings are worth a lot larger multiple of today's earnings.
If you don't mine
Another way to value miners is to calculate what the gold in the ground sells for versus ingots above ground. For example, in the case of Newmont Mining (NEM, news), its 100 million ounces would cost you $350 an ounce if you acquired the whole company. Adding the $550 per ounce that it costs to yank the gold out of the ground means that, at roughly $900 an ounce, the gold with the dirt still on it is a lot cheaper than coins or bars selling for around $1,700 an ounce.
To my mind, the change in behavior since July of the miners I own -- Newmont Mining, Yamana Gold (AUY, news) and Goldcorp (GG, news) -- shows that the shift toward expectations of higher gold prices has finally begun.
That is a psychological sea change. Analysts who have held their future price assumptions for gold prices in the $900 to $1,000 range have just started to bump them up. That can have a dramatic impact. In an Aug. 22 report, the gold stock analyst at Citicorp raised his long-term gold price assumption to $1,050 from $950 and over the next four years to an average of $1,437.50 from $1,156. As a consequence, he upped his target price for Newmont from $55 to $80 per share. That same report contained a table showing that with a long-term gold price assumption of $1,850, his target for Newmont would be $200.
I believe that the concept of a future with higher gold prices is an idea whose time has come.
An ingot for their thoughts?
Another development in the gold sector that I have been following has to do with China. On Nov. 7, Zero Hedge reported on the China National Gold Group's purchase of a miner in Central Asia. And last Wednesday, trading in Jaguar Mining (JAG, news) stock was halted, after reports that Shandong Gold Group (a state-owned Chinese company) is going to make an offer at about a 70%-plus premium. (Trading later resumed.)
A couple of proposed acquisitions in a short space of time does not guarantee that a trend is under way, but it does appear that, at the margin, China is becoming more aggressive about owning a bigger share of the world's gold production. This is something it ought to do, as I have stated many times, and if it makes a few more acquisitions, that could unleash a tremendous frenzy in miners of all stripes.
At the time of publication, Bill Fleckenstein owned shares of Microsoft, Newmont Mining, Yamana Gold and Goldcorp. He also owns gold.
This column is a synopsis of Bill Fleckenstein's daily column on his website, FleckensteinCapital.com, which he's been writing on the Internet since 1996. Click here to find Fleckenstein's most recent articles.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”
The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.
CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”
Two of the memo’s authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker; Cranford joined CLGC this year after serving as the speaker’s assistant for policy. A third partner, Steve Clark, is reportedly “tight” with Boehner, according to a story by Roll Call that CLGC features on its website.
Jeff Sigmund, an ABA spokesperson, confirmed that the association got the memo. “Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal – it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way,” he said in a statement to "Up."
CLGC did not return calls seeking comment.
.. the Fed could launch QE3 at any moment.
With our dysfunctional Congress and the failure of the super committee to reach any agreement, combined with the Euro-Zone (big EZ) racing to recession .. if not diving to depression .. and Asia flirting with the fall out .. QE3 is probably going to be a global reaction.
Come on mule, we got to get all these sacks of fools gold off the mountain before the customers evaporate.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] A solid November employment report translated into a solid day of gains for the major averages. While there was some talk that the encouraging job growth raised the odds of the Fed announcing a tapering at its December meeting, the message of the markets today was either that it didn't believe there would be a tapering this month or that it doesn't fear a tapering this month.
It was just one day, yet there was ample meaning wrapped up in the connection that the 10-yr ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|