2011年7月31日星期日

黃金大反攻日

何文俊
上周提到,聯儲局於2005年11月10日公布,將於翌年(2006年)3月23日起停止公布M貨幣供應總量,而金價在聲明公布的同一個月內升破499.5美元的二十二年高位,並於12月1日攻破500美元大關,展開其火箭之旅。
2005 年11月的確是一個奇妙的月份。翻查紀錄,金價於11月16日和17日連續兩日急升,合共升逾17美元(3.73%);於11月16日,美滙指數「吻別」 92.63的高位,並於17日展開漫長的下跌,半年後更正式跌破90點水平;往後至今五年多,不管金融海嘯有多大及經濟環境有多壞,都未能重返90點水 平。
05年重大轉折
換言之,金價爆升美元趨跌的轉折關鍵,就是2005年11月中前後。究竟當時發生什麼事?
從 當時美國經濟的基本面,着實看不出任何端倪:聯邦基金利率處於上升周期(當月升至4厘)、美滙指數連升三個月且剛剛上破90點關口不久、通脹於兩個月內由 高位4.7%急降至3.5%,以及油價更由高位近69美元連跌三個月至57美元。按照當時形勢,金價不倒已經偷笑,要反過來爆升,看來完全沒有條件和道 理,也沒有指望。
然而,就在最不可能的時刻,美國政府一個決定,令整個局面出現改變,不可能變成可能。
2005年10月和11月是全球黃金投資者永遠不會忘記的兩個月份。10月24日,時任美國總統喬治布殊宣布提名貝南奇為新一任聯儲局主席;11月16日,美國參議院銀行委員會同意該項任命,貝南奇於翌年2月接替退休的格林斯平。
當時市場一般對貝南奇的認識,主要在於他對大蕭條的研究,以及設立通脹目標的主張。不過,對於觸覺較為敏銳的黃金投資者來說,貝南奇獲得任命,對投資市場的啟示,可能遠遠大於對經濟走向的啟示。
在 這些投資者眼中,貝南奇既是研究大蕭條的專家,又是金本位的敵人,更是金價起飛的恩人。2004年的一次公開演說中,時任聯儲局理事的貝南奇把金本位打成 經濟衰退的禍首(the existence of the gold standard helps to explain why the world economic decline was both deep and broadly international),因為其導致貨幣政策失去彈性並容易出現全球緊縮。
放棄金本位是擺脫蕭條達致復蘇的良方,具體措施包括政府發 債購買私人資產,而聯儲局則以新印銀紙向政府買債,加上減稅等財政政策,便可達致佛利民所謂「從直升機上擲錢(helicopter drop of money)」的效果,helicopter Ben(Ben 為貝南奇名字)的威名遂不脛而走。至於此舉對美元滙價的影響,各大小經濟學教科書均有討論,不贅。
貝南奇推波助瀾
既然主張金本位棄不足惜,大印銀紙抗擊通縮又名正言順,貝南奇自然認為黃金不值一哂。因此,當金價於去年6月升抵1200美元時,貝南奇不得坦承自己不太了解金價走勢,且把升勢演釋為預期通脹升溫的「市場噪音」。
到了今年7月13日,貝南奇更乾脆表示黃金不是貨幣,聯儲局持有(世上最多的)黃金儲備僅傳統使然;結果當日金價大升近15美元,至1582美元,更於7月18日乘債務上限爭議升破1620美元。
事態至此已經相當清楚:在宏觀環境萬般不利金價的情況下,一項終止公布廣義貨幣供應的聲明,以及一個主張以印鈔機對抗通縮的聯儲局主席之任命,不但把局面完全扭轉,更引發美元與金價走勢的結構性轉變。
金價的最強後盾,捨我「奇」誰?
交通銀行環球金融市場部

譚雅玲:明年金價或突破2000美元


“目前炒作黃金有理有據。金價未來高漲的趨勢不會扭轉,預計2012年將突破2000美元。”中國外匯投資研究院院長譚雅玲昨日接受中國證券報記者採訪時表示,金價飆漲背後隱現美國打壓歐元,誘惑歐元區出手賣黃金解決債務危機困局,甚至想讓歐元消失的政治圖謀,但其根本目的還是想讓美元霸權的全面回歸。
  記者:近期國際黃金期貨、現貨價格都屢創歷史新高。市場預期年內可能達到1800美金/盎司,明年可能突破2000美金/盎司。如此高的價格之下,您認為金價有泡沫麼?您如何看待未來金價走勢?
  譚雅玲:不可否認,目前黃金價格的高漲有很大炒作氛圍,但這種炒作是有理有據的。基本面因素支持黃金價格上漲,也支撐未來黃金價格高漲預期。
  我預計今年金價將在每盎司1750美元左右,超出1800美元可能性不大,預計明年的價格將會突破2000美元水平。今年與明年的價格上漲可以期待,但後年乃至以後的價格趨勢不確定性較大、變數較大。
  記者:金價在本應淡季的6、7月份卻一反常態飆漲,淡季不淡,在您看來,背後的主導因素是什麼?
  譚雅玲:目前投資者對全球經濟前景判斷的恐慌心理及悲觀判斷,尤其是各國寬鬆貨幣政策引起的複雜局面,這些都給予黃金價格充足的空間和理由進一步上漲。此外,美國圖謀強勢美元回歸的政治意圖也是其中之一,但並非是核心因素。

值得注意的是,黃金價格基礎並非完全是需求決定價格,相反已經演變為投資決定價格。全球流動性過剩則重新凝聚了黃金價格高漲的投資、投機以及資金基礎力量,黃金價格高漲將難以避免。
  記者:歐洲債務危機、美國債務上限問題尚未解決、QE3可能推出的預期仍然強烈,在您看來,這些因素將對黃金價格有什麼樣的影響?
 譚雅玲:歐洲債務危機以及美國債務危機的炒作性大於實質影響。歐洲債務問題是一個老話題,歐元​​區各國難以協調是老生常談。對於美國而言,根本目的和最終目標是誘惑歐元區出手賣黃金解決債務危機困局
  美國解決國債危機的對策是以其國家利益最大化為根本,因此最終目的是擠垮歐元,實現美元霸權的全面回歸。現在金價高漲是美國針對歐元僅存實力的一種戰略規劃和設計,想要掏空歐元所有的實力,最終讓歐元無法支撐運行,讓歐元消失。
  記者:黃金價格不可能一直單邊上漲,您認為什麼時候金價會有回調?回調之前可能有哪些誘因?
  譚雅玲:美元依然是黃金價格變化的主要指引因素。我認為,在美元的匯率比較穩定,並且歐債危機的風險完全暴露出來時,金價就可能出現一個回調。而投資者的預期心理也對金價走勢推波助瀾。
  但是,短暫的回調不會改變未來金價持續高漲的趨勢,2011年下半年國際黃金市場將會進一步刷新記錄。
  記者:中國有望成為全球最大的黃金消費國,中國黃金投資者的態度將對金價影響較大。您對國內的黃金投資者有什麼樣的建議?
譚雅玲:把握機會和重視風險是2011年黃金投資的關鍵詞。投資者需要根據資金規模和自身財富基礎,適時適度擇機入市並把握黃金投資收益和控制黃金投資風險。投資組合可以適當提高黃金投資比重,減弱股票和基金板塊的過量過多配置。

THE COMPLETE COST OF MINING SILVER

By SRSrocco:

The inspiration to write this post was to clarify some issues with the costs of mining silver. I believe many of the investing public has mistaken what is termed as the “CASH COST” as the real cost of mining silver. According to the Silver Institute in 2010, the cash cost from primary mine production was $5.27 an ounce. The Silver Institute gets their info from the World Silver Surveys produced by GFMS. I have had an email exchange over the past several months with one of their metal analysts on various topics. I recently asked permission to reproduce their Cash Cost graph for this post, and was told I could do so for $1,500.

Instead of forking out 1,500 clams for a graph that I believe is highly overrated, I decided to reproduce my own simpler version for this post. Let me point out, the 2010 silver cash cost posted on the Silver Institute comes from a percentage of primary silver producers. If global primary silver production was only 30%, the $5.27 an ounce cash cost was only a small part of the overall global cash cost picture. To understand what represents “CASH COSTS”, here is a good definition:

CASH COST: The costs of onsite production including by-product credits as well as transport, refining, onsite administration costs and royalties.

What isn’t included in the cash costs are depreciation, depletion, amortization, general and administration, exploration, interest expense, and taxes. This is not a complete list, but you get the idea. Furthermore, cash costs of silver represent measurements that are not in accordance with GAAP (General Accepted Accounting Principles) that management uses to evaluate the performance of mining operations. Why is that last sentence important? Even if you have a very low cash cost, it doesn’t guarantee profitability.

Let me give you an example. In 2008, Hecla had a silver cash cost of $4.20 oz. Even though the average price of silver in 2008 was $14.99 oz, Hecla had a Net Income loss of $66.5 million. We can see that the cash cost in reference to the profitability of a company is completely worthless. That is why I have come up with my own formula on what are the COMPLETE MINING COSTS for silver.

Investors need to realize that all costs should be factored into calculating what a company actually pays for bringing an ounce of silver to market. In each ounce of silver that a mine produces and sells to market a portion must go towards exploration, general administration staff, interest expense, depreciation and etc….we also can’t forget the costs in mine remediation when the operation is finished. To me, it doesn’t matter what a mine’s cash costs are if they can’t make a profit. The industry has highly publicized the cash costs of mining companies which in my opinion has misled the investing public.


This is my version of a cash cost graph. I have been focusing on U.S silver companies, but wanted to throw in Fresnillo as a comparison. Fresnillo located in Mexico, is the largest primary silver mine in the world with 38.5 million ounces of silver produced in 2010. Hecla has mines in Idaho and Alaska. US Silver’s Galena mine is located in Idaho and Revett Mineral’s Troy mine is located in Montana. I did not include Coeur d’ Alene, even though it is the largest U.S. based primary silver mine in the country. Most of Coeur’s silver production comes from Mexico, Bolivia and Argentina. I wanted to stick with the largest domestically producing primary silver mines in my report.

As you can see from the graph above there is a range from Hecla’s negative cash cost of -$1.46 oz to Revett Mineral’s cash cost of $14.38 oz. Basically, Hecla is mining silver for free when you factor in all their by-product credits from gold, lead and zinc. Now that you know the cash costs of these companies, let’s look at my formula for calculating the COMPLETE COST OF MINING SILVER.

CALCULATING MY COMPLETE COST PER OUNCE

To get a more complete cost of mining silver, I took the net income at end of the year from each mining company and divided it by their total sales. This turns out to be a percent. That percentage figure is subtracted from 100% and then multiplied by the average price of silver in 2010…which was $20.16 oz. Again, this is a formula I came up with does not factor in the sales of silver vs. silver production as well as other items including differentiation of by-product credits between different mining firms. I believe that most by-product metal sales from the majority of mining companies’ are sold at market value or similar in price to their competition. As you can see there are so many variables, but at least my method gives the investor a better idea of how much it really costs a mining company to profitably produce silver. Here is an example below:


As I mentioned above, I did not use what is termed as “Income applicable to common shareholders”, which in Hecla’s case was $35.3 million in 2010 ($13.6 million in dividends). Some mining companies have dividends and some do not. To make it simple and easy across the board, I used the Net Income from each mining company. I plugged in the formula above for each mining company and came up with the COMPLETE COST GRAPH below:


Here we can see there is quite a difference between the mining companies’ cash cost per ounce and what the complete cost per ounce after everything is paid (except shareholder dividends). Even though Hecla had such a low cash cost in 2010 (due to a great deal of by-product credits of gold-lead-zinc), its complete cost per ounce was $17.84 using my formula. When someone asks me how much it cost for Hecla to produce an ounce of silver in 2010….it’s closer to $17.84 than it is to -$1.46. If the average price of silver had fallen below $17.84 an ounce in 2010 and each mining companies’ production costs remained the same, Hecla, Revett Minerals and US Silver would all have shown losses instead of profits. Fresnillo had a much larger margin due to its huge volume of high grade silver production that it could have absorbed much lower silver prices.

There seems to be a correlation between production volume and cost. The more volume, the lower the complete cost. If many of the silver bears had their way and the price of silver remained below an average of $15 an ounce in 2010, mining companies can’t stay in business giving away silver at a loss. This is the same situation in the oil business. Tar Sands at a production expense of $80+ a barrel cost a great deal more to produce than Saudi oil at $20 a barrel (in 2007 dollars). If the price of oil falls below $80 and stays there for quite some time, Canadian Tar Sands would be one of the first operations to cease production. Price destruction = Supply destruction. Below are the silver production figures for the 4 mines used in my graphs:

2010 SILVER PRODUCTION FIGURES

Fresnillo = 35.8 million oz
Hecla = 10.5 million oz
US Silver = 2.3 million oz
Revett Minerals = 1.0 million oz

Three of the four primary silver mines listed above are located in the U.S. which accounted for 36% of total domestic silver production in 2010. Again, if the average price of silver remained below $17.50 an ounce in 2010, three U.S. silver miners would more than likely have suffered losses rather than profits.

I hope this gives the investor a better idea of complete costs of mining silver. For all of you who think that it costs more to mine silver in the U.S. than it does in Mexico and South America….I give you Coeur ‘d Alene. In 2010, the majority of Coeur’s silver production came from Mexico, Argentina and Bolivia. In 2010, Coeur ‘d Alene had a net income of -$91.3 million. That’s right a negative 91.3 million clams.

DISCLAIMER & FINAL THOUGHTS

Any of you who think you can take my complete cost figures and try to tell others that so and so mining companies’ cash costs are bogus, need to read my disclaimer. My formula above is a common sense approach to finding out what a “next to best complete cost” to mine an ounce of silver for each mining company. It is not a precise science. There are a lot of variables that are not included. What it is…is a guideline to show a complete cost picture rather than what the industry touts as CASH COSTS….which to me are totally meaningless.

That being said…..I plan on doing a 2011 Q1 update to show that even though complete costs are rising, profits are rising even faster. For example, using my formula Hecla had an increase of a complete cost per ounce of $21.59 for silver in Q1 2011 compared to $17.84 in 2010. With the average price of silver in Q1 being $31.66, Hecla has more than a $10 net profit per ounce….or a whopping 31.8% net return after all costs compared to only 11.5% in all of 2010.

One of the reasons why I write these posts is due to what I refer to as ANAL-ISTS rubbish. This is what I term as ANALYSTS gone bad. There are several of these on my list. I will come out in this post and say that Ned Schmidt has been one of my favorites on this list. Ned put together a chart on what he thought was a FAIR VALUE for silver. I might reproduce his chart in a future post when I feel like presenting “THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY”. Ned Schmidt gave a fair value of silver in JAN-FEB 2011 of $15.42 an ounce. He also stated that it was OVERVALUED at $20.04.

I believe I proved that if silver was anywhere near $15 an ounce, several mining companies would have suffered big losses. I sometimes wonder the motivation of so called gold and silver analysts who offer such splendid advice and forecasts.

Lastly…I mostly enjoy writing these posts to help educate others. I believe a better informed investor makes better decisions. Because these posts take a great deal of time to put together, I would really enjoy seeing your comments…either pro or con. I imagine a great deal of the readers may never leave a comment…but I would just like to know if this work has had some benefit to the reader.

http://silvergoldsilver.blogspot.com

即使你跑不过刘翔,也要跑得过CPI

有人说,即使你跑不过刘翔,也要跑得过CPI。但现在看来,即使你跑得过刘翔,也不一定能跑得过CPI。面对此情此景,主动的人怎可能会坐以待毙?连姚明退役,都要考虑如何理财的这个当下,诚如《白银投资必胜术》中所说:“我们处在一个不得不投资的时代。”
书中没有深奥的投资概念,不是那种故弄玄虚的“高深”投资书。书里从“本拉登拉跌白银市场”,介绍了白银市场的来龙去脉和它的今昔,有黄金和白银投资利弊的分析,有传统投资渠道(股票、债券、基金等)与白银投资的对比。无论是哪种比较,都无一例外地得出一个结论:白银投资的时机来了。
如果你认同作者的理念,也想在白银投资中试试身手,那你倒是可以像作者说的“买几块银币”或“拿几根银条”,或者再新潮一些,买些“纸白银”来投资一把,这都是不错的选择。经过一翻锤炼之后,你已经有了相当功力,可以再试试作者说的“白银T+D”,即白银延期交割业务,想必亦是投资者玩转投资的一大快事。
近年来白银价格上涨的速度确实高得出乎人们意料,5月份以来,银价反复拉锯。不少人不禁怀疑:这会不会是银价长期暴跌的开始?以后白银就不行了呢?
由价格一时的下跌,就对白银的未来走势看淡,则未免有些只见树叶不见森林了。
人们的这种反应,属于心理学中的“沉锚效应”。即对某人某事做出判断时,人们容易受到第一信息的支配,就像沉入海底的锚,思维也被固定在某一个地方。在金融市场,投资者常常会过于聚焦在短期事件而忽略长期的投资效果。这也导致投资者对价值的估计或对未来的预测,往往集中在当前的走势附近。
尽管官方不承认全面通胀的到来,但事实是所有东西都在涨,只有工资不涨。为了跑赢CPI,不妨做一回白银投资者吧。投资的时候,别忘了拿出这本《白银投资必胜术》参考一下,学上一招半式。

欧美债务危机阴魂不散 黄金或再现1970-80大牛市

花旗集团(Citigroup Inc)今日表示,若美国与欧洲主权债危机极具恶化,黄金可能将再现1970-80年代的大牛市行情,届时可能将上破2,500美元/盎司大关。
在美国前总统尼克松(Richard Nixon)1971年宣布取消金本位决定后,黄金价格1980年1月大涨21倍至当时历史高位的850美元/盎司。
黄金价格7月27日涨至1,628.05美元/盎司的历史记录高位,因美国提高债限以防止违约的谈判仍处僵局,以及欧洲主权债担忧均提升了黄金作为避险资产的需求。29日伦敦时间上午11.24,现货金报1,615.10美元/盎司。
花旗分析师称,投资者对黄金的渴求,没有其它任何一种金属可以替代,在市场需求处于疯狂状况时,金价涨至5,000美元/盎司也不为怪,尤其是在法定货币的价值储藏功能贬值或全球经济前景担忧背景下。
金价2011年迄今已上涨14%,黄金ETF基金的黄金持有量达历史记录高位,各国央行也在努力扩大黄金储备规模。
分析师称,黄金价格飙升(即使飙升仅是暂时行为)的几率已上升,并超过25%,而几周前概率仅为不足5%。

Tvb 今晚財經透視,真金白銀

2011.07.31 - 真金白銀/綠色手指
播出日期: 2011.07.31 (日)
 
〈真金白銀〉
美國失業率仍然高企,經濟增長步伐又時快時慢,推出第三輪量化寬鬆(QE3),似乎有一個短期作用。不過貨幣供應增加,美元會進一步貶值。面對這個大趨勢,持有「真金白銀」可能是較為穩健的方法。香港商品交易所繼五月份,推出黃金期貨之後,最近再推出白銀期貨,本地散戶都可以參與,風險如何?