|
Analyses based on annual supply and demand of gold appear on a daily basis,
whether posted to gold web sites or in the financial media, many of them by
the most respected analysts of gold mining shares. These articles typically
show an imbalance between supply and demand, suggesting that there is a gold
supply deficit. From there, the conclusion follows that a much higher gold
price is required in order to bring supply and demand into balance.
There is no gold supply deficit. Even if there were, to cite Dick Cheney, "deficits
don't matter". The dollar price of gold is formed through the balancing of
total gold supply and demand against total dollar supply and demand. The incremental
supply and demand during any one-year period is irrelevant to the price. The
illusion of a deficit comes about from an incorrect interpretation of supply
and demand figures: annual amounts rather than totals are compared.
On the supply side, the annual production of gold has almost nothing to do
with its price. Neither does decades of under-investment in gold exploration,
the lack of new discoveries of gold deposits, miners' cash cost per ounce,
nor environmental delays in permitting new mines. The output of the gold mining
industry has very little impact on the gold price.
On the demand side, the "annual demand" for gold -- as it is computed in the
models showing a deficit -- is a misleading figure. The comparison of annual
amounts is relevant for a commodity that is consumed but not one that is held
as is gold. For an asset that is held, the annual demand has no business being
compared against annual supply, for the comparison tells us nothing about the
price.
Whose Deficit?
While I could cite hundreds of examples if I had been collecting them over
the years, in the interest of space, I will cite only two to make my point.
These two examples were selected not to single out the particular writers,
as there were many others that could have been chosen, but because they happened
to pass in front of me recently.
First, this article on
a mining site:
GOLD supply shortages were possible in the long-term, according to recent
research produced by Canadian research house, Metals Economics Group (MEG).
It said in a press statement that recently discovered deposits of more
than 2.5 million ounces, enough to attract the interest of major gold producers,
were not adequate to replace their production.
And this
piece from a financial news site:
...JP Morgan believes the gold market outlook continues to improve. Demand
continues to strengthen (even if only for one-off events such as the establishment
of gold Exchange Traded Funds or ETFs), but this stronger demand is not
being met by higher supply thanks to declining production from South Africa
in particular. This means central bank selling is required to meet the
shortfall, but the quantity of this selling is limited under agreements
in place between the banks.
The Case for a Deficit
In order to understand why there is no deficit, I will explain why some people
think that there is one.1 The
problem with the supply deficit theory is in the interpretation of the numbers,
and not the numbers themselves. Because the exact numbers don't matter so much,
I will use the gold supply and demand figures from a prominent industry source,
the World Gold Council, without attempting
to verify them. Values for the last three years are found in their supply
and demand spread sheet.2 Even
if slightly different numbers were used, the point that I am going to make
would not change.
Table 1, below, is based on the WGC figures for the last two years. Note that
they do not show much of a deficit for 2004 and a slight surplus for 2005.
The WGC, as far as I know has not promoted the supply deficit argument. However,
I am citing their figures because they use the annual supply and demand methodology,
the same methodology that is used by analysts who think that there is a deficit.
Table 1: WGC Annual Figures
| (tonnes) |
2004 |
2005 |
| Supply |
| Mine production |
2469.0 |
2520.3 |
| Net producer hedging |
-426.5 |
-131.1 |
| Gold scrap |
847.7 |
860.9 |
| Official sector sales |
469.4 |
660.6 |
| Total supply |
3359.7 |
3910.7 |
| |
| Demand |
| Jewelry |
2612.8 |
3131.8 |
| Industrial & dental |
409.7 |
420.1 |
| Bar and coin retail investment |
397.1 |
409.2 |
| Other retail |
-56.8 |
-22.5 |
| ETFs |
132.6 |
208.1 |
| Total demand |
3495.5 |
3726.6 |
| |
| Balance (total supply - total demand) |
-135.8 |
184.0 |
A report from the UK branch
of the French bank Cheuvreux caused considerable discussion when it was
released last year. This report, using the same flawed methodology, showed
much larger supply deficits on an annual basis. It is worthwhile to understand
the discrepancy between these two reports. On pages 26 and 27 of the report,
the information used to construct Table 2, below, appears. While the WGC
shows a surplus for both 2004 and 2005 on the bottom line a report from the
Cheuvreux report, while using essentially the same numbers as the WGC, shows
estimated supply shortfalls of hundreds of tons annually.3
Table 2: Cheuvreux Annual Supply and Demand
| (tonnes) |
2004 |
9M2005 |
| Supply |
| Mine production |
2461 |
1842 |
| Net producer hedging |
-427 |
-123 |
| Gold scrap |
829 |
608 |
| Supply before official sales |
2864 |
2327 |
| |
| Demand |
| Jewelry |
2613 |
2129 |
| Industrial & dental |
409 |
316 |
| Net retail investment |
342 |
305 |
| ETFs |
133 |
125 |
| Total demand |
3498 |
2874 |
| |
| Supply Shortfall |
-634 |
-547 |
| Official Sector sales |
475 |
489 |
| Balance |
-159 |
-58 |
The difference between the two reports using the same raw data are substantial
and must be explained. The main source of the WGC definition of supply value
includes official sector sales while the Cheuvreux definition of supply does
not. In the Cheuvreux report, the net supply minus demand (which they call supply
shortfall) is greater than the net of supply minus demand in the WGC report
by an amount approximately equal to the size of official sector sales. Because
the official sector sales are a fairly large number, the Cheuvreux value for
net of supply and demand is a negative number in both 2004 and 2005.
Cheuvreux shows the official sector sales in a separate row appearing in their
table after Supply Shortfall. By removing official sector sales from
the supply, this format implies that official sector sales were necessary in
order to fill a deficit between the other components of supply and the demand.
While official sector sales offered "at market" probably do affect the gold
price, this impact is exaggerated by offsetting official sales against annual
figures rather than totals.
Deficits Don't Matter
Let's look at how the WGC and the Cheuvreux arrive at a deficit.
In the WGC report, a footnote states (with some caveats) that the Balance term
is partly due to residual error (presumably errors in measurement); and that
the remaining Balance is the "implied value of net (dis) investment" ("includes
institutional investment other than ETFs and similar stock movements"). In
the WGC report, a negative Balance (deficit) would occur in any year where
there are net private (non-official) sales.4
The Cheuvreux report starts from the position of the WGC report, however,
Cheuvreux does not include the additional differential due to the omission
of official sector sales from their definition of supply. Cheuvreux defines
a deficit year as any year during which there were net private plus official
sector sales.
A word can be defined to mean anything, but is the definition useful? I will
argue that to define a deficit year as a year in which there are private sector
or official sales is more than a little bit misleading, because it leads to
thinking about the gold market as if it were a spot market for a commodity
that is consumed rather than held.
For a commodity that is consumed, an annual incremental deficit would imply
a higher price in the future because the deficit could only be filled by a
drawdown of existing stockpiles, which would eventually become exhausted if
the deficits continued. Upon the depletion of stockpiles, the price would have
to rise to the point where demand was in balance against only that supply that
was produced.
But gold is not that sort of commodity. There is no need at all for supply
on an annual basis excluding private sales to come into balance with
demand on an annual basis. It is not even true that these must balance over
any number of years. The reason for this is that a sale out of someone's stockpile
of gold does not reduce the total amount of stockpiled gold. All it
does is to shift the gold from the seller's private stockpile to the buyer's
private stockpile. A market could remain in a "deficit" of this sort forever
without the price ever going up (or going down) as buyers and seller shifted
the contents of their stockpiles among themselves.
Stocks and Flows
We can divide economic goods into those for which the entire annual supply
is destroyed in the process of consumption, and those for which new supply
is hoarded.5 Economists call
the former "flows" and the latter "stocks".
Analyzing the supply and demand over a short window of time for a flow-type
good would tell you a lot about where the price was likely to go. But annual
supply and demand for the second type - of which gold is the premier exemplar
- tells you almost nothing about its future price movement.
First, consider a good that is consumed, where by "consumed" I mean that the
economic value of a unit is destroyed over the course of its productive life.
One example is DVD players. The economic value of a player is destroyed as
the player wears out. All of the supply that manufacturers produce must be
sold. There would be no real reason for Sony to sit on warehouses full of aging
players. The price of the players can only fall as they become obsolete, and
on top of that, they are costly to store. Sony must sell everything that they
produce at whatever price the market will support at the time.
Competition from other manufacturers to sell, and competition among consumers
to buy Sony's players, or other goods entirely, ensures that the price at which
the players are sold will be whatever price clears the market between all buyers
and sellers on a very short time scale. In micro-economic jargon, most final
goods have a vertical supply curve once they arrive at the market. The same
would be true of any perishable good, most manufactured goods, and commodities
that can only be stored for a short time, such as beef or eggs.
But for most known commodities, the aboveground supply is relatively small
compared to the quantity that is permanently used up every year. Most of what
is mined, drilled, grown, or raised on a farmed is consumed soon after it is
produced. In some cases, large stockpiles of a particular metal - e.g. silver
-- have been accumulated and in other cases accumulated stockpiles have sold
off (silver again). But absent a large stockpile the market price of these
goods is pretty close to the level that balances the recent supply and current
demand.
When it comes to a stock, total (not annual) supply and demand determine the
price of each unit. Consider the following example concerning equity shares
of a corporation. Suppose that an equity analyst appeared on CNBC stating that
the price of a common share in company XYZ, with 100M shares issued, would
rise (or fall) because they were only issuing 1M new shares this year, while
the demand for those shares would be 2M. This analyst would be pricing the
shares as if they were a stock-type of good. Using this method, a daily volume
of 1M shares would be an annual volume of about 250M, which would create a "supply
deficit" of 249M shares assuming 1M new shares issued.
It is easy to see the fallacy here. Even if the capital raised from issuing
the new shares added no value at all to the corporation,6 at
worst it would only dilute the value of the existing shares by 1%. A stock
with 100M shares outstanding could easily trade 1M shares per day without the
price rising or falling as people rearrange their portfolios with some
who wish to hold fewer shares selling, and other investors who wish to hold
more shares buying.
The True Supply of Gold
To understand the price of gold, the relevant supply is the total supply,
not the new supply coming to market during the last year (or week or
month). The supply of gold consists of all of the supply that exists. The relevant
demand is the total demand, not the new demand coming to market during
any year.
For gold, there is always a large stockpile, and it never gets smaller. The
vast majority of all gold mined throughout human history still exists and is
held either in bars, coins, or jewelry. According to the WGC, this
quantity was around 155,500 tonnes at the end of 2005. Almost no gold is
used up (in the sense of being destroyed or becoming permanently unusable)
ever. In most cases when a buyer purchases gold, it moves from the seller's
hoard to the buyer's hold.
The World Gold Council estimates
that 52% of gold is held as jewelry. James Turk subdivides jewelry holdings
into low carat and high carat. The former is purchased mainly for the gold
value, as an alternative to buying bars and coins. The latter is purchased
mostly for fashion. According to Turk's
estimate (which was published in 1996), monetary jewelry at that time
accounted for about 60% of jewelry with fashion jewelry accounting for the
remaining 40%. However, even when made into jewelry, the gold is not destroyed
and can come back into the market as scrap. The WGC figures show significant
recovery from scrap.
The reason that total supply and not annual supply matters is that the gold
market is not segregated into two markets. There is not one gold market for
the current year and another gold market for aboveground gold that was mined
in previous years. The gold market is a single market in which all sources
of supply are indistinguishable. Every existing ounce of gold competes for
sale with every newly mined ounce. A buyer of gold doesn't care whether he
is buying recently mined gold or gold that was held in bars for 100 years,
or the product of melted jewelry.
Every ounce of gold that is held by someone is potentially for sale at
some price. While not every ounce of gold in private hands is for sale
at the current market price, any ounce of gold could potentially come
to market. A lot of gold is held in small stockpiles among widely dispersed
owners. Some is for sale just above the current spot price, some only at
much higher prices. The varying levels of prices at which different units
of goods held in a stock are offered for sale is what makes the supply curve
upward-sloping rather than vertical as is the case in consumption goods.
Is it true that a lot of gold is not for sale at all, so it should not be
counted as part of the supply? In short, no. gold is held as a store of value
over time. The point of holding a store of value is not to hold it forever
and then have it cremated along with your corpse. A person will only store
value over time because they anticipate the need for the value some time in
the future. Anyone who anticipated having no needs in the future would not
need to store value over time. And the stored value is only stored for a
finite period of time until the person holding it becomes aware of something
that they need more than what they have stored. That would be the time to sell.
Note also that every new ounce of gold that is mined does not need to be sold
at the current market price. Unlike most manufactured goods, gold mining companies
do not necessarily have a vertical supply curve for their product because it
does not spoil or become obsolete. While many mining companies do sell all
of their supply at spot soon after they have mined it, some mining companies
sell their supply at a pre-determined price that in some cases was fixed years
in advance through hedging contracts. And other mining companies choose to
hold mined supply in reserve with the anticipation of selling it later, at
a higher price. Goldcorp has
done this in the past, at one point accumulating more vault gold than the central
banks of a large number of small nations.
The Demand for Gold
It is easy enough to see that the supply of gold is the total supply. But
what is the demand? It turns out that the demand is equal to the supply.
To understand this, we introduce the concept of reservation demand.
Most people are familiar with exchange demand. Exchange demand is expressed
by giving up something in an exchange in order to for the thing demanded. Reservation
demand is a demand that is expressed by holding onto something that you own.
People who hold gold are demanding it by holding it off the market. As Austrian
economist Murray Rothbard explains,
At any point on the market, suppliers are engaged in offering some of
their stock of the good and withholding their offer of the remainder. ...
This withholding is caused by one of the factors mentioned above as possible
costs of the exchange: either the direct use of the good (say the horse)
has greater utility than the receipt of the fish in direct use; or else
the horse could be exchanged for some other good; or, finally, the seller
expects the final price to be higher, so that he can profitably delay the
sale. The amount that sellers will withhold on the market is termed their
reservation demand. This is not, like the demand studied above, a demand
for a good in exchange; this is a demand to hold stock. Thus, the concept
of a "demand to hold a stock of goods" will always include both demand-factors;
it will include the demand for the good in exchange by nonpossessors, plus
the demand to hold the stock by the possessors. The demand for the good
in exchange is also a demand to hold, since, regardless of what the buyer
intends to do with the good in the future, he must hold the good from the
time it comes into his ownership and possession by means of exchange. We
therefore arrive at the concept of a "total demand to hold" for a good,
differing from the previous concept of exchange-demand, although including
the latter in addition to the reservation demand by the sellers.
The Total Picture
Now that we have covered the total supply and total demand, the proper rendering
of the supply and demand situation would look something like Table 3, though
the numbers are not exact. Note that when all sources of supply and demand
are counted, there is no deficit. Total supply and total demand must always
equal because every transaction has a seller and a buyer. Over time, there
is a gradual accumulation of the stock of gold and a possible shifting between
investment holdings (bar, coin, ETF) and jewelry.
Table 3: Total Supply and Demand
| (tonnes) |
2004 |
2005 |
| Supply |
| Mine production |
2469 |
2520.3 |
| Destroyed by industrial/dental use |
-409.7 |
-420.1 |
| Recovered from scrap |
847.7 |
860.9 |
| Existing supply |
149,131.90 |
152,038.90 |
| Total supply |
152,038.90 |
155,000.00 |
| |
| Demand |
| Industrial & dental |
409.7 |
420.1 |
| New bar and coin retail investment |
397.1 |
409.2 |
| ETFs |
132.6 |
208.1 |
| Reservation demand from prior accumulation |
151,099.50 |
153,962.60 |
| Total demand |
152,038.90 |
155,000.00 |
| |
| Balance (total supply - total demand) |
0 |
0 |
The price of gold is determined as is the price of any stock: by total supply
and total demand. The price is that price which balances total supply against total
demand, including reservation demand. The price of gold, in terms of dollars,
or other fiat money, balances supply of all gold offered for sale at a range
of prices in dollars with demand for gold - including both demand to exchange
dollars for gold and the reservation demand for dollars and for gold.
Looking at supply and demand over a single year tells us nothing because the
annual supply and demand are only about 2-3% of the total supply and demand,
while the price of gold depends mostly on the other 98%.
Suppose that during a particular year, there are net sales from stockpiles.
This tells us nothing about what the price of gold will do, because when gold
is sold, it goes from the seller's private stockpile into the buyer's private
stockpile. There is no limit on the number of consecutive years in which sellers
of gold can sell out of their stockpiles as long as there are buyers who add
to their stockpiles that same year. This type of trade in gold could go on
forever without the price changing because individuals' needs change all the
time. During a given year, there will always be some people who have an increasing
need of a store of value and others having a decreasing need. The former become
buyers, the latter, sellers.
Annual changes to supply and demand do not influence the price much, if at
all, because annual changes are small compared to the total. Around 98% of
supply during any year was previously mined. And around 98% of demand is reservation
demand, while only around 2% of demand is exchange demand for mined gold.
Newly mined gold does have some effect on the gold price, but only insofar
as it dilutes the total supply of gold by a small amount. As previously discussed,
mine supply dilutes existing supply by about 2% annually. If the supply of
gold were diluted by 2% each year, and existing holders wanted to hold the
same amount of gold in their portfolios measured in purchasing power
terms, then existing holders would rebalance their portfolios adding about
2% to their positions and the price of gold would have to fall by about 2%.
If gold mining were to increase by 50% from the current year to the next year,
would the price of gold collapse? Not at all. After a 50% increase, the proportion
of new mine supply out of total supply would only rise from 2% to 3%. Gold
demand would not need to increase by 50% in terms of ounces to absorb this
supply, only by about 0.98% (1.03/1.02 - 1.0).
But even this overstates the influence of newly mined gold. It is probably
more relevant to measure demand in dollar terms rather than in ounces. In this
example, if the price of gold in dollars declined by about 0.97% (1/0.98) while
gold demand in dollars remained constant, the demand in ounces would increase
by just enough to balance the new supply. With a total demand, properly
counting reservation demand, absorbing the newly mined gold into the market
doesn't appear nearly so difficult.
Another way of making the same point is to suppose that gold mining stopped
entirely. Investment demand by new investors in gold would have to be met by
an equal amount of disinvestment by existing holders. In that case, then every
buyer would have to buy gold from a private or official sector seller. If an
annual deficit year is defined as one in which there are net private sector
sales, the market would be in deficit every single year. No matter how high
the price moved, the market would still be in deficit. There is no price of
gold that would cure the deficit because of the way that the deficit is defined.
But the price would not necessarily go up under these conditions because any
sales out of a seller's stockpile are exactly offset by additions to a buyer's
stockpile. All that happens in a market like this is that stockpiles change
ownership from owners who value them less at that time to owners who value
them more. No general statement about the price can be made; however, during
periods of the classical gold standard, the purchasing power of gold tended
to rise by a few percent per year.
Silver is Not Gold
When it comes to silver, deficits do matter. Here I cite the works of silver
analysts David
Morgan, Ted
Butler, and Charles
Savoie. For most of the past few thousand years, annual mine supply was
in equal or in surplus over annual consumption, and stockpiles were accumulated
year after year, at one point reaching around 6 billion ounces. Over the last
forty years, stockpiles have been drawn down to nearly zero. At the present
time, all of the silver consumed during any given year is silver that came
out of the ground that year, with a decreasing contribution from stockpiles.
With silver, it does make sense to look at net private sales from stockpiles
as filling a deficit between supply and demand. Why is this true for silver
and not for gold? For the most part, demand for silver is consumption demand,
and most consumption demand is destructive, meaning that the silver ends up
in a form where it cannot easily be reclaimed and brought back into the market.
Therefore, the deficit of mine supply relative to destructive demand implies
a necessary sale out of stockpiles. These finite stockpiles cannot continue
to supply the world with 100Moz of silver for consumption annually. At some
point, they must be exhausted and higher prices will then be required in order
to bring supply and demand into balance on an annual basis.
To the extent that the silver held for investment purposes, then everything
I have said about gold applies to silver. The same would be true for photographic
demand for silver because most silver used in photography is reclaimed. Silver
is partly held for investment purposes and partly consumed, so its price behavior
will result from a combination of the two models.
Conclusion
Does the non-existence of a supply shortage theory make the case for gold
weaker? I say no. At the beginning of this article, I stated that there is
a bullish case for gold. If not the mythical shortage of mined supply, then
what is it?
Analysts including Frank
Veneroso, Reginald Howe, Robert
Landis, John
Embry, and others affiliated with the
GATA organization have shown in a
series of research reports published over the last five years that central
banks have created what amounts to a large naked short position in the gold
market using paper derivatives. The accumulation of shorts without any offsetting
longs has been a negative for the gold price, especially during the late
90s.
But the ultimate bullish case for gold is none other than the bearish case
for fiat money, the dollar, and central banking. Gold is money and while central
banks have the ability
to debase fiat money up to a point, they are in the end limited by the
acceptability of their paper as money. The end game of the paper monetary system
is collapse and its replacement by the natural monetary order of gold.
Notes:
1 To be fair, I believe that the gold
analyst community is divided on this issue. There are many analysts who use
the correct method of comparing total supply and total demand. What prompted
me to write this piece is the disconnect that I see between the two groups.
I have listened to interviews between analysts on opposite sides of this issue
where they each went away thinking that the other agreed with them.
2 This site may require free registration
to view some items.
3 The Cheuvreux report cites the World
Gold Council as the source of the data but the annual numbers differ slightly.
I am not sure why but the differences are small so it doesn't affect the argument.
4 I should point out that the WGC does
not use the term "deficit", though many writers using these figures, or figures
like this, do use that term.
5 There are in-between cases, like houses,
which are used up over a period of decades. But for analytical convenience,
we posit these two ideal types in order to understand the different pricing
behavior of each one.
6 Actually, this happens all the time
when corporations issue new shares upon the exercise of employee stock options.
|