These Crisis Markets Are Primed to Deliver Big Gains

These Crisis Markets Are Primed to Deliver Big Gains

By Justin Spittler

Editor’s note: Today, we’re continuing our conversation with Crisis Investing editor Nick Giambruno. Yesterday, Nick explained the ins and outs of crisis investing…and what he looks for in a good crisis investment. In part two, Nick shares two key markets he’s keeping an eye on today…


J. Spittler, editor of The Daily Dispatch: What are some of your most successful crisis investments?

Nick Giambruno: In 2013, the tiny European island of Cyprus had a banking crisis. Its stock market plunged 98%. It was one of the most significant financial crises in recent memory.

So Doug Casey and I packed our suitcases and boarded a plane for Cyprus. We put our “boots to the ground” and looked through the rubble for incredible bargains.

At the time, there were sound, productive, and well-run businesses in Cyprus making money and paying dividends. Some of these companies were trading for less than 50% of their book value…literally pennies on the dollar.

We recommended eight Cypriot stocks to our readers. One was a resort company that operates luxurious beachfront hotels in Cyprus. We made a 210% gain on that one.

We booked a 170% gain on a technology company. We also recommended two consumer goods companies. One of those doubled. The other nearly doubled.

We’ve also had success recently. This month, we locked in a 103% gain on a beaten-up gold stock. I expect other stocks in the Crisis Investing portfolio to deliver even bigger gains.

Continue reading “These Crisis Markets Are Primed to Deliver Big Gains”

How to Invest in a Difficult Market

How to Invest in a Difficult Market

By Casey Research

Many experts hold dim views of the current state of the US economy—but what’s a prudent investor to do to make a profit? Find out what the blue-ribbon faculty of economists and investment pros at the recently concluded Casey Research Fall Summit thought.

Lacy Hunt, senior executive VP of Hoisington Investment Management Company and former chief economist at the Dallas Fed, says the main reason that the global economy continues to falter is that all countries borrow too much and save too little.

“275% total debt to GDP is the critical threshold. Every world economy of importance is above that level and moving higher.” He finds today’s monetary policy “impotent.” The Fed, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan are trying to solve the problem of too much debt by borrowing more, which has short-term benefits, but will be disastrous long term.

Too much borrowing, says Hunt, guarantees that we’ll get more asset bubbles. Because the United States is the least indebted of the three countries, it will continue to outperform Japan and Europe.

He predicts that the dollar will rise against other major currencies and that inflation, as well as interest rates, will remain low.

Christian Menegatti, managing director of economic research at Roubini Global Economics, is convinced that we’re at the end of a supercycle and won’t see a normalization of monetary policy for quite some time.

Like Lacy Hunt, Menegatti predicts that global interest rates will stay low. On the positive side, he doesn’t believe that we will see secular stagnation; in other words, a full “Japanification” of the US is unlikely.

The current economic recovery in the US is weaker than that in the 1930s, claims Worth Wray, chief strategist at Mauldin Economics. He says while nominal interest rates are the lowest they’ve ever been, real rates could go lower.

When the Fed’s QE3 is over, he predicts that growth will weaken and rates will fall further. “Without another dose of stimulus, the US will likely slide into recession.”

Taking a global view, he thinks that China’s slowdown could cause the Australian housing bubble to pop, and that commodity prices will drop over the next few years, which will hurt resource-rich countries like Australia, Norway, and Canada.

He recommends to buy US Treasuries and to diversify across asset classes that thrive in different economic environments to strengthen your portfolio against a possible crisis.

Diversification is also the number-one tip from the expert panel on “Building a Crisis-Proof Portfolio” at the Casey Summit, consisting of Worth Wray and Casey editors Alex Daley, Terry Coxon, Dan Steinhart, and Dennis Miller.

They say a crisis can take one of two forms:

  1. A “standard” crisis, where stocks crash but the financial system remains intact. In that scenario, you want to own US government bonds because they’ll retain their safe-haven properties.
  1. A “reset,” meaning a complete implosion of the global financial system. Government bonds won’t save you from that type of crisis. Instead, you’d want to own real, non-financial assets, such as physical gold and silver, as well as farmland and other real estate.

For “Future Tech You Can Profit from Now,” Alex Daley, chief technology investment strategist at Casey Research, suggests to look for companies that offer game-changing benefits or savings and that focus on “where businesses and people spend their time and money,” like OpenTable or Zillow.

Daley recommends three companies with great upside from his Casey Extraordinary Technology portfolio.

He says there’s no need to worry about the broader market if you can find great companies with consistent growth. “Look for 40% revenue growth over the same quarter last year; that’s the magic number.”

To get all of Alex Daley’s stock picks (and those of the other speakers), as well as every single presentation of the Summit, order your 26+-hour Summit Audio Collection now. It’s available in CD and/or MP3 format. Learn more here.

The article How to Invest in a Difficult Market was originally published at caseyresearch.com.

Beer, Bears, and a Canoe: Your Guide to Lower Travel Costs

Beer, Bears, and a Canoe: Your Guide to Lower Travel Costs

By Ann Pringle

Leisure was last weekend’s theme, I spent it in a canoe—a cheap and energy-efficient way to see the Everglades, though not at all speedy. That was fine—I just wanted to see alligators in their natural habitat, enjoy a frosty beverage with good company, and return to the city with my limbs intact. My nature-sighting report: zero panthers, one alligator, and one black bear.

Now, had I needed to go from here to there in the swamp, an airboat or swamp buggy would have worked better, or so the locals said. However, when you’re not rushing, old-time means of transportation like canoes and trains add to the adventure. There’s no harm to indulging in that nostalgia—though when Congress forces you to pay $45 billion so “the public” can do the same, it’s a problem.

A $45 Billion Affair Sours

The US has a 44-year-old mistress, and her name is Amtrak. Since its inception in 1970, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has received about $45 billion in federal subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Amtrak loses money year in and year out despite these fat subsidies (or likely because of them). The company’s operating loss for fiscal 2012 was the lowest since 1975: $361 million. Yes, that means Amtrak actually found a way to lose more than $361 million each year for almost 40 years running.

The Amtrak lobby is quick to point out that in total dollars, air and highway travel receive far more from the federal coffers. True enough. However, on average an American will ride just 20 miles on Amtrak each year. 20 miles!

Per passenger mile, Amtrak is far and wide the most heavily subsidized transportation system in the US. According to a 2012 Cato Institute study by senior fellow Randal O’Toole, from 1995 to 2007 Amtrak’s federal subsidies per passenger mile were 9 times greater than those to the airlines and 22 times greater than our highway system’s.

It’s no surprise these subsidies haven’t made train travel cheaper. Per passenger mile, inflation-adjusted airfares dropped 50% from 1960 to 2010. Meanwhile, Amtrak fares rose 70%. As O’Toole mentions, it’s pretty remarkable that during a period of rapid technological advancement and reduced costs for privately funded transportation, Amtrak has done such a shabby job of controlling costs.

One runaway cost is so absurd, it will baffle anyone who’s spent $6.25 on a ballpark hotdog and washed it down with a $5.75 Coke. From 2002 to 2012, Amtrak’s food service operation lost the company, ahem, I mean lost taxpayers $834 million.

Ted Alves, who resigned as Amtrak’s inspector general in February, testified to Congress last year that the $72 million in food-service losses in 2012 alone stemmed predominately from meals on long-distance routes. Free wine is part of the problem, as multiple long-distance routes include complimentary wine gatherings for sleeper-car passengers. Who knew you were buying so many people drinks?

In short, Amtrak can’t make a dime selling food and drinks to people who are literally stuck on a train with no other option. A privately owned and operated company could turn that problem around with a 10-minute lesson from any ballpark concession worker.

#AmtrakResidency

If you’re not irked yet, get ready. Last March Amtrak launched #AmtrakResidency, a writer residency program “designed to allow creative professionals who are passionate about train travel and writing to work on their craft in an inspiring environment.” Up to 24 writers are being selected for 2- to 5-day “residencies,” meaning free meals and long-distance travel, through March 2015.

Answer two probing questions in 2,000 words or less and you, too, could be a contender:

  • Why do you want a #AmtrakResidency?
  • How would this residency benefit your writing?

Too bad the rickety tracks make writing on Amtrak next to impossible.

There’s not much to redeem Amtrak. Its trains are less energy efficient than inter-city buses. It doesn’t provide an invaluable service to the poor, who generally take that cheaper, more energy-efficient bus if and when they can’t snatch up cheap airfare. And, though subsidy supporters call it an invaluable public service, I can’t pinpoint what that service might be. Free wine for leisure travelers, perhaps?

When Driving Miss Daisy Is Not an Option

Seniors could benefit a great deal from well-run private alternatives. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway and Safety (IIHS), as of 2012, 79% of the US population aged 70 and older still held valid driver’s licenses. That’s up from 73% in 1997, and as the baby boomer population ages, the total number of 70-plus drivers on the road will increase as well.

Unfortunately, they’re not all road-safe. Although overall crash rates tend to decrease with age, the rate of fatal crashes takes an upward spike when drivers pass age 70. While many seniors self-regulate by driving only during daylight and sticking to familiar routes, those who shouldn’t drive but do have limited alternatives.

Short of hiring a personal driver, what other comfortable options do seniors have for inter-city travel? Not every trip warrants a flight, and thanks to the TSA, air travel is now a world-class headache anyway. Plus, in all but a few major cities, the bus carries a certain social stigma I won’t dwell on here. Suffice it to say, middle-class seniors are unlikely to start riding the bus after 50-plus years behind the wheel.

On the other hand, Amtrak’s schedules are haphazard, its stations are bleak and difficult to move through, and its standards of service are spotty at best. It’s too bad, though, because Amtrak should be courting middle-class and well-to-do seniors first and foremost. They have time to travel slowly and discretionary income to spend on comfortable accommodations and polite service.

Furthermore, as long-distance driving becomes difficult or dangerous for the aging boomer population, private passenger trains could help fill the void.

Lessons from the Sunshine State

Among other errors in 2000—recall the hanging chad—Florida voters amended their state constitution to require construction of a statewide network of high-speed passenger trains. That’s right, an actual constitutional amendment demanding trains.

The plan unraveled in 2004 when voters repealed the amendment after learning how much it could cost them: $20-25 billion. However, the state’s train dream didn’t stop there. Construction on the Tampa-Orlando line, phase 1 of the state’s plan, seemed imminent until Governor Rick Scott rejected $2.4 billion in federal stimulus to build the line. Scott cited concern that his state couldn’t afford the project even with the federal funds.

As the brouhaha over a state-funded Tampa-Orlando line continues, All Aboard Florida is planning passenger rail service from Orlando to Miami, with stops in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. The private company plans to operate 16 northbound and 16 southbound passenger trains beginning in 2016.

It’s still uncertain whether All Aboard Florida, which is being developed by Florida East Coast Industries, LLC—a company with 122-year-old roots—will be successful. About 17% of Florida’s population is over age 65, and the state relies heavily on tourism, so it’s an ideal place to test how much travelers will ride trains when they have to pay the entire fare out of pocket.

What you just read was an excerpt from Miller’s Money Weekly, a free e-letter that provides retirees and people planning for retirement with guidance on saving, investing, and life. To get Money Weekly in your inbox every Thursday, click here.

Mining and Environment—Facts vs. Fear

Mining and Environment—Facts vs. Fear

By Laurynas Vegys, Research Analyst

“I would NEVER invest in a mining company—they destroy land, pollute our water and air, and wreck the habitat of plants and animals.”

These were the points made to me by a woman at a social gathering after I told her what I do for living. She prided herself on her moral high ground and looked upon me with obvious disdain. It was clear that as a mining researcher, I was partly responsible for destroying the environment.

I knew a reasonable discussion with her wouldn’t be possible, so I opted out of trying. (As Winston Churchill said, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”) She left the party convinced her position was indisputably correct. But was she?

Not at all.

In fact, with few exceptions, today’s mining operations are designed, developed, operated, and ultimately closed in an environmentally sound manner. On top of that, considerable effort goes into the continued improvement of environmental standards.

My environmentalist acquaintance, of course, would loudly disagree with those statements. Many people may feel uncomfortable investing in an industry that’s so closely scrutinized and vehemently criticized by the public and mainstream media—whether there’s good reason for that criticism or not. This actually is to the benefit of those who dare to think for themselves.

So let’s examine what mining REALLY does to the environment. As Doug Casey always says, we should start by defining our terms…

How Do You Define “Environment”?

In modern mining, the term “environment” is broader than just air, water, land, and plant and animal life. It also encompasses the social, economic, and cultural environment and, ultimately, the health and safety conditions of anyone involved with or affected by a given mining activity.

Armed with this more comprehensive view of the industry’s impact on the environment, we can evaluate the effects of mining and its benefits in a more holistic fashion.

Impact on the Economy

According to a study commissioned by the World Gold Council, to take an example from mining of our favorite metal, the gold mines in the world’s top 15 producing countries generated about US$78.4 billion of direct gross value added (GVA) in 2012. (GVA measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry, or sector in a country.) That sum is roughly the annual GDP of Ecuador or Azerbaijan, or 30% of the estimated GDP of Shanghai, China. Here’s a look at the GVA for each of these countries.

Keep in mind that this doesn’t include the indirect effects of gold mining that come from spending in the supply chain and by employees on goods and services. If this impact were reflected in the numbers, the overall economic contribution of gold mining would be significantly larger.

Also, it’s evident that gold mining’s imprint on national economies varies considerably. For countries like Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Tanzania, and Uzbekistan, gold mining is one of the principal sources of prosperity.

Another measure of economic contribution is the jobs created and supported by businesses. The chart below shows the share of jobs created of each major gold-producing country.

The four countries with the highest numbers of gold mining employees are South Africa (145,000), Russia (138,000), China (98,200), and Australia (32,300). The industry also employs 18,600 in Indonesia, 17,100 in Tanzania, and 16,100 in Papua New Guinea. (As an aside, it’s quite telling that South Africa employs more gold miners than China, but China produces more gold than South Africa.)

Note that these employment figures don’t include jobs in the artisanal and small-scale production mining fields, nor any type of indirect employment attributable to gold mining—so they understate the actual figures

For many countries, gold mining accounts for a significant share of exports. As an example, gold merchandise comprised 36% of Tanzanian and 26% of Ghana’s and Papua New Guinea’s exports in 2012. Below, you see a more comprehensive picture of gold exports by 15 major gold-producing countries.

Other, often-overlooked ways in which the mining industry supports the economy include:

  • Foreign direct investment (FDI). The three mining giants—Canada, the United States, and Australia—have been dominating this category for a number of years, both as the primary destinations for investment and as the main investor countries.
  • Government revenue. All mining businesses, regardless of jurisdiction, have to pay certain levies on their revenue and earnings, including license fees, resource rents, withholding and sales taxes, export duties, corporate income taxes, and various royalties. Taken all together, these payments make up a large portion of overall mining costs. For example, estimates suggest that the total of mining royalty payments in 2012 across the top gold-producing countries worked out to the tune of US$4.1 billion. This, of course, doesn’t account for other types of tax normally applied to the mining industry.
  • Gold products. Gold as a symbol of prosperity and the ultimate “wealth insurance” is very important to many nations around the globe—especially in Asia and Africa. Gold jewelry is given as a dowry to brides and as gifts at major holidays. In India, the government’s ban on gold purchases by the public led to so much smuggling that the incoming prime minister is considering removing it. Chinese, Vietnamese, and peoples of India and Africa may all be divided across linguistic lines, but they all share the view of gold being a symbol of prosperity and ultimate insurance against life’s uncertainties.

It’s also important to note that jobs with modern mining companies are usually the most desirable options for poverty-stricken people in the remote areas where many mines are built. These jobs not only pay more than anything else in such regions, they provide training and health benefits simply not available anywhere else.

Mining provides work with dignity and a chance at a better future for hundreds of thousands of struggling families all around the world.

Let’s now have a look at the most debated and contentious side to mining.

Impact on the (Physical) Environment

In previous millennia, humans labored with little concern for the environment. Resources seemed infinite, and the land vast and adaptable to our needs. An older acquaintance of ours who grew up in 1930s Pittsburgh remembers the constant coal soot hanging in the air: “Every day, it got dark around noon time.” Victorian London was famous for its noxious, smoky, sulfurous fog, year-round.

Initially, the mining industry followed the same trend. Early mine operations had little, if any, regard for the environment, and were usually abandoned with no thought given to cleaning up the mess once an ore body was depleted.

In the second half of the 20th century, however, the situation turned around, as the mining industry realized the need to better understand and mitigate its impact on the environment.

The force of law, it must be admitted, had a lot to do with this change, but today, what is sometimes called “social permitting” frequently has an even more powerful regulatory effect than government mandates. Today’s executives understand that good environmental stewardship is good business—and many have strong personal environmental ethics.

That said, mining is an extractive industry, and it’s always going to have an impact. Here’s a quick look at some of the biggest environmental scares associated with gold mining and how they are confronted today.

Mercury Symbol: Hg Occurrence in the earth’s crust: Rare Toxicity: High

 

Mercury, also known as quicksilver, has been used to process gold and silver since the Roman era. Mercury doesn’t break down in the environment and is highly toxic for both humans and animals. Today, the use of mercury is largely limited to artisanal and illegal mining. Industrial mining companies have switched to more efficient and less environmentally damaging techniques (e.g., cyanide leaching).

 

Developing countries with a heavy illegal mining presence, on the other hand, have seen mercury pollution increase. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) estimates that 1,000 tons of mercury are annually released into the air, soil, and water as a result of illegal mining activity.

To help combat the problem, the mining industry, through the members of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), has partnered with governments of those nations to transfer low- or no-mercury processing technologies to the artisanal mining sector.

Sodium Cyanide Mining compound employed: NaCN Occurrence in nature: Common Toxicity: High

 

This is one of the widely used chemicals in the industry that can make people’s emotions run high. Historically considered a deadly poison, cyanide has been implicated in events such as the Holocaust, Middle Eastern wars, and the Jonestown suicides. Given such associations, it’s no wonder that the public perceives it with alarm, without even adding mining to the equation.

 

It is important, however, to understand that cyanide:

  • is a naturally occurring chemical;
  • is not toxic in all forms or all concentrations;
  • has a wide range of industrial uses and is safely manufactured, stored, and transported every day;
  • is biodegradable and doesn’t build up in fish populations;
  • is not cumulative in humans and is metabolized at low exposure levels;
  • should not be confused with acid rock drainage (ARD; see below); and
  • is not a heavy metal.

Cyanide is one of only a few chemical reagents that dissolves gold in water and has been used to leach gold from various ores for over a hundred years. This technique—known as cyanidation—is considered a much safer alternative to extraction with liquid mercury, which was previously the main method used. Cyanidation has been the dominant gold-extraction technology since the 1970s; in Canada, more than 90% of gold mined is processed with cyanide.

Despite its many advantages for industrial uses, cyanide remains acutely toxic to humans and obviously is a concern on the environmental front. There are two primary environmental risks from gold cyanidation:

  • Cyanide might leach into the soil and ground water at toxic concentrations.
  • A catastrophic spill could contaminate the ecosystem with toxic levels of cyanide.

In response to these concerns, gold mining companies around the world have developed precautionary systems to prevent the escape of cyanide into the environment—for example, special leach pads lined with a plastic membrane to prevent the cyanide from invading the soil. The cyanide is subsequently captured and recycled.

Further, to minimize the environmental impact of any cyanide that is not recycled, mine facilities treat cyanide waste through several processes that allow it to degrade naturally through sunlight, hydrolysis, and oxidation.

Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) Target chemical: Sulfuric acid ARD occurrence in nature: Common Toxicity: Varies

 

Contrary to popular belief, ARD is the natural oxidation of sulfide minerals such as pyrite when these are exposed to air and water. The result of this oxidation is an increase in the acidity of the water, sometimes to dangerous levels. The problem intensifies when the acid comes into contact with high levels of metals and thereby dissolves them, which adds to the water contamination.

 

Once again, ARD is a natural process that can happen whenever such rocks are exposed on the surface of the earth, even when no mining was involved at all. Possible sources of ARD at a mine site can include waste-rock piles, tailings storage facilities, and mine openings. However, since many mineral deposits contain little or no pyrite, ARD is a potential issue only at mines with specific rock types.

Part of a mining company’s environmental assessment is to conduct technical studies to evaluate the ARD potential of the rocks that may be disturbed. Once ARD has developed, the company may employ measures to prevent its spread or reduce the migration of ARD waters and perhaps even treat the water to reduce acidity and remove dissolved metals.

In some places where exposed sulfide minerals are already causing ARD, a clean, modern mine that treats all outflowing water can actually improve water quality.

Arsenic Symbol: As Occurrence in the earth’s crust: Moderate Toxicity: High

 

Similar to mercury, arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is commonly found as an impurity in metal ores. Arsenic is toxic in large doses.

 

The largest contribution of arsenic from the mining industry comes from atmospheric emissions from copper smelting. It can also, however, leach out of some metal ores through ARD and, when present, needs to be removed as an impurity to produce a saleable product.

Several pollution-control technologies have been successful at capturing and removing arsenic from smelting stacks and mine tailings. As a result, between 1993 and 2009, the release of arsenic from mining activities in Canada fell by 79%. Similar figures have been reported in other countries.

Mythbusters

Now, here’s our quick stab at dispelling the three most widespread myths environmentalists commonly bring up in their rants against the mining industry.

Myth 1: Mining Uses Excessive Amounts of Land

Reality: Less than 1% of the total land area in any given jurisdiction is allotted for mining operations (normally far less than that). Even a modest forestry project affects far more trees than the largest open-pit mine. Mining activities must also meet stringent environmental standards before a company can even get a permit to operate.

The assessment process applied to mining operations is very detailed and based on a long string of policies and regulations (e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act in the US). Environmentalists may claim that the mining industry is rife with greedy land barons, but there’s more than enough evidence to the contrary.

Myth 2: Mining Is Always Detrimental to the Water Supply

Reality: Quite the opposite, actually. Before mine operations start, a mining company must submit a project proposal that includes detailed water utility studies (which are then evaluated by scientists and government agencies). Many companies even install water supply systems in local communities that lack easy access to this basic resource. It’s also common for the rocks to be mined to be naturally acid generating—a problem the mine cleans up, by its very nature.

Some die-hard zealots blame the mining industry for consuming huge amounts of water, but in fact it normally only uses +1% of the total water supplied to a given community, and 80% of that water is recycled continuously.

Myth 3: Mining Is Invasive to the Natural Environment

Reality: Yes, mining activity in certain countries has led to negative outcomes for certain plants and animals—not to mention the rocks themselves, which are blasted and hauled away. However, the industry has progressed a long way in the last few decades and, apart from rare accidents, the worst is behind us now.

The key determinant here is compliance. All mining activity must comply with strict environmental guidelines, leading up to and during operations and also following mine closure. After mining activity ends, the company is required to rehabilitate the land. In some cases, the land is remediated into forests, parks, or farmland—and left in better condition than before.

It’s worth reiterating that in some cases—where there’s naturally occurring ARD or where hundreds of years of irresponsible mining have led to environmental disasters—a modern mine is a solution to the problem that pays for itself.

Can You Be Pro-Mining and an Environmentalist? Absolutely.

Gold mining (and mining in general) is extractive and will always leave some mark on our planet. Over time, however, the risks have been mitigated by modern mining technologies. This is an ongoing process; even mining asteroids instead of planet Earth is now the subject of serious consideration among today’s most visionary entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, the (vastly diminished) risks associated with mining are far outweighed by the economic contribution and positive effects on local communities and the greater society. This net-positive contribution is here to stay—unless our civilization opts for collective suicide by sending us all back to the Stone Age.

Right now, gold and gold stocks are so undervalued that you can build a sizable portfolio at a fraction of what you would have had to spend just a few years ago. To discover the best ways to invest in gold, read Casey Research’s 2014 Gold Investor’s Guideget it for free here.

The article Mining and Environment—Facts vs. Fear was originally published at caseyresearch.com.