|
France rejected the EU constitution this weekend in a referendum garnering
55 percent for the "no" camp, pretty much as expected. The latest polls also
show that when the Netherlands vote on Wednesday, 60 percent will vote "no." The
constitution is supposed to create a European president and foreign minister,
to give more power to the European parliament, and other reforms aimed at improving
economic growth in the EU.
All 25 members are to vote by November 2006.
From what I understand, the French oppose the constitution because they feel
it would further hurt the labor market and industry in their own ailing economy.
Their attitude may reflect a growing protectionist sentiment or at least opposition
to full-fledged integration on nationalist grounds of some kind. The nationalists
would feel that full integration would dilute their cultural backbone while
the EU economy benefits at their expense. Either way it is basically opposition
to free trade, which is why the EU was allegedly developed in the first place.
Ironically, France is one of the first places where the free trade idea was
spawned during the 18th century.
So the United States might as well be looking at its own future when it looks
at France and Germany, or Canada. Don't even bother to argue - look at the
complaints today about the jobs being lost to China, let alone the President's
trade tariffs. There is a strong protectionist wind blowing through Washington
today.
Free trade is increasingly a dying idea, not for any sound reason, and not
far behind is the whole idea of free exchange. Anyhow, it is a blow to the
EU initiative, and by extension to the Euro. I'm not so sure it should be a
blow to the Euro's foreign exchange value since the concepts of protectionism
and nationalism are not limited to Europe these days. However, there is fear
that these "no" votes will lead to a disintegration of the EU down the road.
That's not really news to our readers since we've already pointed out the inherent
fundamental weakness of the stability and growth pact, and its long run effects
on the Euro's ability to dislodge the US dollar from its role as reserve currency.
So the Euro could very well be topping now in terms of the US dollar, at least
for the medium term. Nevertheless, this does not change my gold call.
I expected it and have already shown that it is more than possible for gold
prices to rise even as the USd stops falling on foreign exchange markets. The
main significance for this news is that the Euro price of gold should now start
to rise - in other words, the real value of the Euro should begin to reflect
the ECB's inflation rate.
Whatever
effect it might have on the foreign exchange value of the US dollar there is
no fundamental reason to expect that its REAL value would be bolstered just
because its FX value is... except maybe in the short term. My feeling, as I
wrote beforehand, is that this event is bullish for gold prices overall (the
graph to the right shows Euro gold prices).
Equity/Commodity Correlations:
In light of the divergence between gold stocks and gold prices over the past
year or so I thought that it might be a good idea to review the like correlations
in the energy sector since 1998. Note in the accompanying graph that prior
to 2004 oil prices and oil shares did not always move together - in fact
they spent most of their time moving in opposite directions (shaded regions).
Moreover, the peaks and troughs were usually led by the commodity, and not
the shares. Of course, had equity investors expected the big surge in oil
prices that was to follow in 2004 and beyond, it might have been different.
However, every time the price of oil
would approach US$30/bbl, the oil stocks dove, which seemed counterintuitive
to those of us expecting oil to break out above that level. It took time for
confidence to build on the equity side, in part because earnings weren't doing
that great on a relative basis despite the strength in oil prices, yet.
Sound familiar? It should, since that's precisely what's happening in the
gold sector today.
Gold stock earnings have not yet increased at an attractive enough pace to
entice equity investors who may be skeptical that gold might make it to US$500...
never mind break out past it. As oil prices began to look firm at the US$30
handle, and then as they left it behind, blowing away the skeptics altogether
(remember how many times it was reported that oil would fall back down to
below US$20), the market jumped all over the oil shares... its confidence
rewarded by the enormous boost to cashflows following on the subsequent record
move in oil prices. Looking at the oil share index in 2002: it broke down even
as oil prices drove up past US$30. Part of the reason for this particular break
was the general market collapse in the summer of 2002 that was accompanied
by all the sectors. Nevertheless, it shows that blind faith in the equity sector
as an accurate forecaster of the underlying commodity price trend can be a
misguided and costly strategy... this may be especially true if everyone expects
it, and especially at the early stages of a bull market.
|