
A historical tour of gold price.
This blog serves as a reminder for my personal reference and it is not intended to be used as a indicator or advice for any of your investment or trading decesion

Gold is moving closer to EMA200 days, as dollar is gaining ground against the EURO. Another possible reason is investor is going back to Equity due to recent movement in NYSE.

from: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/droke/2008/0429.html
WILL THE FED CREATE MORE
INFLATION IN COMMODITIES?
by Clif Droke
April 29, 2008
Inflation has been investors’ main focus lately. A commonly held assumption is that the Fed’s aggressive lowering of interest rates will only result in more inflation and an even bigger bulge in commodities prices. Is this a necessary outcome of increased liquidity and lower rates?
Let’s examine this belief. Historically, we find that Inflation basically occurs in three situations:
First, the final “runaway” up-leg of the economic long-wave known as the K-Wave causes spiraling inflation. This occurred in the 1970s and early ‘80s in the U.S. Now, however, we’re entering the final runaway deflationary period of the K-Wave. A repeat of ‘70s-style hyperinflation is therefore highly unlikely.
The second way for inflation to rear its ugly head is in war time economies. War is probably the most expensive endeavor known to man. It always causes a rise in natural resource and basic commodity prices as materials are in high demand for waging war. In the early phases of a war, defense spending can lift the economy following a recession, as it did for the U.S. in 2002-2003.
Commodity prices began their meteoric ascent in 2002-2003, around the time that the Greenspan Fed began vigorously loosening money and credit in response to the 2000-2001 recession. It would be easy to conclude that the inflation in money supply led directly to an inflation of hard asset prices, yet the story doesn’t end there. The U.S.-led military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were also key factors around this time.
It was partly in response to the war-time measures earlier this decade that led to the commodities boom getting started. As we all know from history, during the early stages of a war, commodities prices tend to rally in the face of a dramatic increase in demand.
After an upward spike in 2001 following 9/11 and extending through 2003, defense spending has since waned, as the following chart shows (Source: Haysmarketfocus.com).
Yes, war can create a huge spike in commodity prices. But can we blame the commodity price spirals we’ve seen since 2003 on the Middle East war. Certainly the ongoing military struggles in the Middle East, as challenging as they’ve been, can’t be compared to the high-level wars of say Vietnam or World War II, which burned resources at a drastic rate. The reasons for the commodity price inflation lie elsewhere.
This leads us to make the following statement: The most common “cause” for inflation is a weak economy. A weak economy, in turn, is a consequence of tight money measures by the Federal Reserve. The Fed holds ultimate sway over the fate of our national economy through its control of interest rates and money supply. Every major recession as well as every speculative bubble has had as its root in either a hyper-contractive or a hyper-expansive Fed monetary policy. The latest bout of economic weakness is no exception. It actually started back in 2004 when the Fed started tightening money and has now reached the critical point of “maximum recognition” where public awareness is widespread.
Indeed, domestic price inflation was brought to us courtesy of the Fed’s tight money policy. This flies in the face of conventional “wisdom” yet it’s so patently obvious to anyone who ignores the talking heads and pays attention to the correlations.
In his book, “The End of Economic Man,” economist George Brockway writes, “The price of bonds falls as the interest rate rises, and so does the ‘worth’ of money. This is another way of saying that a rise in the interest rate causes a fall in investment and a rise in the price level. In short, [the Fed] raising the interest rate causes both stagnation and inflation.”
In a position paper entitled, “The Sins of the Federal Reserve (How Rate Increases Actually CAUSE Inflation),” Steve Todd observes, “The Fed fancies that by raising rates, they combat inflation. Actually just the opposite is true. Short term borrowing is a cost of doing business for many firms. If that cost is raised, you have only three choices. One, you absorb it and take in less profits. Two, you raise prices. Three, you cut back production. The latter two are inflationary and all three are bad for the financial markets. Raising rates actually causes inflation. Only an economist could fail to see this.”
The bottom line is that we have gone through a period of economic contraction, and consequent stock market volatility and domestic price inflation, because of a tight money policy embraced by the Fed from 2004-2007.
As Todd observed, “…inflation is a function of a bad economy, not a good one….Venezuela has 31% inflation. Iran has 17%. Zambia checks in at 22%. Ghana at 27%. Haiti 39%. It might be added that these nations also have very high unemployment rates. Low inflation is reserved for the strong economies. Japan has 0.3% inflation. In Germany it’s 1.0%. By the Fed’s ‘reasoning’ Africa should have the world’s strongest economies to produce such high inflation.”
The tide has shifted, however, and now the Fed is embracing a much looser monetary policy. It will take a while for the full effects of this loose money policy to be felt in the overall economy. One thing is for certain, however, and it’s that the newly embraced Fed’s loose money policy will eventually do its work in galvanizing the economy and equities as it has always done in the past.
This is one instance where history always repeats.
| By Chong Pooi Koon | Published: 2007/11/18 |
TUNE Money Sdn Bhd, Malaysia's first "no-frills" provider of financial products, may raise more money through private equity next year to support its expansion, its chief said.
Chief executive officer Tengku Zafrul Aziz said the privately-held company, which has a paid-up capital of RM20 million, is looking at a second round of private equity funding early next year.
It may place out up to 10 per cent of new shares to any interested parties, which may be local or international investors.
In addition, he said, the existing shareholders will need to put in at least RM20 million more in the next two years to grow the company before a planned stock market listing in 2009.
"The current shareholders have put in a lot of money and when we reach certain goals, we think we can go to the private quity market and raise more money," he said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur.
"We can also borrow from the banks, but being in the services sector, we have no tangible collaterals such as planes or factories, so the ability to gear is not as good," Zafrul said.
Tune Money, which sells cheaper and simpler financial products through the Internet, needs to invest heavily in technology and marketing at this start-up stage.
The company, whose business model is one that relies on volume, also needs more money to finance expansion into other Southeast Asian countries next year.
"We are now doing (a) study on how much we need, for which market, and (how) to value the company accordingly," Zafrul said.
The company is currently 44.83 per cent owned by Tune Ventures Sdn Bhd, a company in which AirAsia Bhd's founder Datuk Tony Fernandes has a 40 per cent stake.
CIMB Structured Investments, a unit of CIMB Group, owns another 25 per cent of Tune Money. Other shareholders are Zafrul (10 per cent), Datuk Kalimullah Hassan and Lim Kian Onn (each holding 8.21 per cent), Tune Money Employees Sdn Bhd (2.25 per cent) and Kaneswaran Avili (1.5 per cent).
The automotive group initially wanted to be listed on Bursa Malaysia in the third quarter of 2006.
"We are still doing the preparation, but we will announce properly maybe by early next year," chairman and chief executive officer Tan Sri S.M. Nasimuddin S.M. Amin said.
Nasimuddin said the group was still considering a few factors regarding the proposal.
"We are still looking into it. The demand is there," he said in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday.
It was earlier reported that Naza was hiring CIMB Group and ECM Libra Avenue Bhd to arrange its IPO, slated to be one of the biggest in 2006.
Naza is believed to be planning to list either of, or both, its units, namely Naza Automotive Manufacturing (its assembly plant in Kedah) and car distributor Naza Kia Sdn Bhd.
The IPO will fund the group's future expansion, namely the construction of its new RM1 billion plant in Bertam, Penang, and the development of new models.
Last weekend, Naza Bike Sdn Bhd - the franchise holder of the Ducati superbikes in Malaysia - introduced its latest line-up: the Ducati Hypermotard.
The bike, tagged at RM98,000, is a collectible item for superbike enthusiasts. It was initially launched in Europe two years ago. Locally, Naza aims to sell about 50 units in the first year.
The Ducati franchise contributes about 10 per cent to Naza's total revenue per year. The Naza Bike division sells almost 4,600 motorcycles a year.
27-06-2007: ETF: Something new for investors
Email us your feedback at fd@bizedge.com
Local investors will soon have the option to invest in a new type of instrument — Equity Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). The FBM30etf will be the first ETF, introduced by AmInvestment Bank Group, to be listed on the Bursa Malaysia next Monday.
What is an ETF?
An ETF is very similar to open-ended unit trusts. It's an instrument representing a basket of stocks that is most commonly designed to track the performance of all kinds of indices. For example, there could be an ETF to track the KLCI, the Second Board Index; a sector index, like the Property Index; or in this case, the FTSE Bursa Malaysia Large 30 Index. More innovative ETFs can track commodities like oil futures and gold.
Why invest in ETF?
ETFs, like unit trusts, offer investors the benefits of diversification. For instance, an investor buying the FBM30etf will gain exposure to the 30 largest companies by market capitalisation, all in one. In other words, they don't have to fork out a lump sum of money to buy each and every one of the 30 stocks — just the minimal one board lot (or 100 units) of the FBM30etf.
Better yet, ETFs usually has lower expense ratio than comparable unit trusts. Annual management fee for unit trusts usually range between 1% and 2%. By comparison, the annual administrative fees for FBM30etf are estimated to total around 0.65%.
The lower fees and expenses are, primarily, because ETFs are passively managed funds. That means the underlying portfolio of stocks and weightings simply mirror the indices they're tracking. In short, investors do not get the benefit of fund managers stock picking or timing the market. Having said that, it remains arguable whether actively managed funds do perform better over the longer term.
Unit trusts also have higher sales charge, typically 5% or higher, whereas the transaction costs for ETFs are similar to those for normal shares trading including brokerage commission (0.3% to 0.6%), stamp duty and clearing fees.
How to buy and sell ETFs?
Trading in ETFs is also a simpler and more convenient process — it's just like stock trading. Investors can buy or sell the ETF by calling their remisiers at any time during trading hours and using the same trading/CDS accounts. This allows investors to be more responsive to market changes. Transactions are settled in the usual way as stocks are, on T+3.
The price of an ETF is determined by demand and supply but shouldn't stray too far from the market value of its underlying portfolio. ETFs also normally have a dividend policy. The FBM30etf expects to distribute any dividends and interest income it receives semi-annually, after netting expenses.
In a nutshell...
ETFs offer investors a relatively low cost, passive way of investing in the market. Returns will more or less mirror the future performance of the underlying index. Under prevailing trading conditions, we suspect that the FBM30etf will do fairly well.
While sentiment for the broader market has been somewhat ambivalent of late, share prices for key blue chips have been inching higher. The FBM30 Index has risen some 47% since its creation just over a year ago, while cumulative gains year-to-date stand at roughly 25%.
INVESTMENT TALK
By ROBERT ROUNTREE
IT would be nice if the good times kept rolling; they do not. The party “spoiler” inevitably joins the crowd. This job has traditionally fallen on the humble economist, whose job it is to water down the punch bowl just as the party is getting real good.
The global equities party is well under way and has, in fact, been on for four years. The “spoiler” has appeared, as if on cue, although it is too early for most partygoers to have noticed.
Ironically, the spoiler may decide that the time for an appearance is not quite right, and then exit the scene with scant notice. But at the moment, the spoiler is in the room. Whether this will be enough to undermine the party has yet to be determined. But we are at a critical juncture; a major reason for equity markets to embark on another correction is now in place should investors start looking for a convenient excuse to sell.
This begs the question as to why investors should want to sell in the first place if the longer-term outlook remains solid. Here’s the answer. We have consistently argued that although we think there is good long-term value to be found on a three-year time horizon, especially within Asia, short-term valuations are again at cyclical highs.
While markets are pretty efficient at pricing in short-term growth and potential, they are lousy at pricing in the longer-term. This situation thus creates times at which the short-term is fully discounted, but investors remain uncertain as to the value of the longer-term potential. They thus revert to selling, often aggressively, shaking out weak holders and “testing” the commitment of longer-term holders. If few sellers appear, or if buyers quickly reappear, then investors may feel that the longer-term potential remains intact.
This is a process we have written about several times, especially as we have seen it play out three times since the global rallies first began in May 2003 – and herein lies another story.
If one looks at the depth and duration of the three major bouts of selling that have punctuated the Asian rallies since May 2003, one notices two things; the sell-offs are getting progressively more shallow and they are also getting shorter. In other words, investors seem to be increasingly buying the longer-term growth story and are beginning to price in that potential. We could easily be building a “launch pad” from which to propel valuations higher.
This situation, however, probably opens the door to a final humdinger of a sell-off before valuations are pushed to new highs; investors want a final “test” before committing themselves to higher valuations. This is where the “spoiler” comes in. It stands to reason that investors could look for another reason to sell. If that reason has solid grounding rather than merely reflecting the “scare tactics” that lay behind February’s sell-off, then any resulting selling could be quite severe. This is what seems to be building up.
Few investors, for example, would be unaware that the world is awash in liquidity. This liquidity first found its way into bond and housing prices. Then, from May 2003, it was equities’ turn as investors recognised the low valuations of the time.
The record liquidity pool originally resulted from policies followed by many key central banks, most notably the US Federal Reserve Board and the Bank of Japan, which pumped money into their respective banking systems so as to offset the global economic slowdown that followed the bursting of the IT bubble.
Liquidity was subsequently created by other central banks which did not want to see their currencies appreciate significantly against a falling US dollar. They thus bought the dollar and sold their own currencies, which boosted domestic liquidity (unless the central bank “neutralised” this liquidity injection, which is what Bank Negara has been doing).
While the reasons how and why this liquidity appeared are complex, the important messages for the equity markets are not. A fair measure of this liquidity, for example, is absorbed by day-to-day economic activity and price increases. The liquidity that is left over generally ends up in equities after a time lag of around six to nine months. Put another way, changes in this “free” liquidity and equity market changes track each other closely.
In recent months, the situation has changed significantly – enter the “spoiler”. Although many central banks are still creating liquidity via their US dollar exchange rate policies, etc, etc, etc, the demand for money has risen, not only as economic activity has remained strong but also as isolated instances of higher prices have emerged. Thus, the huge pool of liquidity that was created after 2000 has not only been slowly depleted but is now contracting. Once this realisation hits the financial markets, the reaction could be explosive.
Under “normal” conditions, we would urge investor caution. But this time, that caution is tinged with two major caveats.
The first caveat is that as the global liquidity tide recedes, huge lakes of liquidity are appearing trapped in the “rock” pools. Japan is one of these lakes. This liquidity has been slowly seeping abroad in search of both higher income and value, seepage which has resulted in a yen that is far weaker than the economic data would otherwise suggest.
Much has been made of the hedge fund industry that has been borrowing the cheap and low yielding yen to invest in higher yielding offshore currencies. But to focus on the activity of this group of investors is to ignore the growing demand for value and yield emerging from the “Mom and Pop” brigade.
Japan, along with many other developed economies, has a pension crisis. The difference is that Japan also has a population “bubble” that is more advanced as people are increasingly joining the ranks of retirees. With the parlous state of Japan’s pension industry, many investors are increasingly looking for value and income abroad, which could very well ensure that the outflow of funds continues and the yen remains perennially weak. In short, Japan’s huge savings pool is showing signs of funding global markets and economies rather than those in Japan, a development about which many commentators are only becoming aware.
The second major caveat is that of valuations.
While short-term valuations are undeniably at cyclical peaks, valuations on a three-year view look cheap. In fact, one can make the case strongly that the global equity rallies seen since May 2003 have only removed the record low cheapness to which equities fell following the bursting of the technology bubble.
Equities have not, we can argue, discounted the strong global economic and profits growth that we are witnessing today. Put another way, global equities would have to rise some 300% (based on the consensus earnings forecasts) just for valuations to rise back to the peaks of 1980/81, 1989/1990 and 1999/2000.
So, even if the liquidity “spoiler” does its worst and equities enter a severe sell-off, is the party over? It does not look like it. As we argued last month, equities look to be extremely good value on a three-year (and longer) view. We reiterate; do not let the short term dust cloud the long-term outlook because that outlook is pretty good.
NB: The views expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Prudential Asset management.
There was a one hour interview on CNBC with Warren Buffet, the second
richest man who has donated $31 billion to charity. Here are some very
interesting aspects of his life:
1. He bought his first share at age 11 and he now regrets that he started too late!
2. He bought a small farm at age 14 with savings from delivering newspapers.
3. He still lives in the same small 3-bedroom house in mid-town
that he bought after he got married 50 years ago. He says that he has
everything he needs in that house. His house does not have a wall or a fence.
4. He drives his own car everywhere and does not have a driver or security people around him.
5. He never travels by private jet, although he owns the world's largest private jet company.
6. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns 63 companies.
He writes only one letter each year to the CEOs of these companies, giving them goals
for the year. He never holds meetings or calls them on a regular basis.
He has given his CEO's only two rules. Rule number 1: do not lose any
of your share holder's money. Rule number 2: Do not forget rule number 1.
7. He does not socialize with the high society crowd. His past time
after he gets home is to make himself some pop corn and watch Television.
8. Bill Gates, the world's richest man met him for the first time only
5 years ago. Bill Gates did not think he had anything in common with
Warren Buffet. So he had scheduled his meeting only for half hour. But
when Gates met him, the meeting lasted for ten hours and Bill Gates
became a devotee of Warren Buffet.
9. Warren Buffet does not carry a cell phone, nor has a computer on his desk.
His advice to young people: "Stay away from credit cards and invest in yourself and
Remember:
A. Money doesn't create man but it is the man who created money.
B. Live your life as simple as you are.
C. Don't do what others say, just listen them, but do what you feel good.
D. Don't go on brand name; just wear those things in which u feel comfortable.
E. Don't waste your money on unnecessary things; just spend on them who really in need rather.
F. After all it's your life then why give chance to others to rule our life."