Tag: China
Asset Allocation Bi-Weekly – A New Factor for Gold Prices (July 15, 2024)
by the Asset Allocation Committee | PDF
The standard regression model is as follows:
Y = α +β(X) + ε
Where Y is the dependent variable, X is the independent variable, α is the intercept, β is slope and ε is the error term. No model, no matter how many independent variables are added, can capture the complete relationship to the dependent variable. However, a well-constructed model will account for most of the variation in the behavior of the dependent variable.
Although it tends to get short shrift in statistics classes, the error term is rather interesting, especially with regard to time series models. Essentially, the error term, or epsilon, is where the unspecified causal factors that affect the dependent variable are housed. The goal of modeling is to select the most meaningful independent variables and then assume the ones that are not specified are not important enough to dramatically affect the dependent variable. It may be that the unspecified terms are not all that important, or if they are, they are offset by other unspecified variables so that the model’s performance isn’t adversely affected.
Sometimes, a dependent variable begins to exhibit deviations to the model’s estimate; this may be caused by several factors. One is that the relationship between an already specified independent variable and the dependent variable has changed. The relationship may have rested on some other factor, such as policy, that has made it more or less important. Over time, the β, or the correlation coefficient, will adjust to this new relationship. In other cases, a previously unimportant variable, contained in epsilon, becomes important.
We think this latter situation is affecting the gold market.
The chart above is our basic gold price model. As the chart shows, the model’s estimation occasionally deviates from the actual price. If nothing has changed, this deviation may suggest an over or undervalued market. The recent spike in gold prices is clearly running well above our model’s estimation. However, we think we have isolated a change that accounts for this deviation.
The upper line on the above chart shows the model’s residuals since 2012. The lower line shows the spread between gold prices in Shanghai and New York. The history of this spread shows some deviation, but in general, this condition invites arbitrage if prices are higher or lower in one market compared to the other. Note that the New York prices far exceeded those in Shanghai during the pandemic. We can assume the mechanisms for arbitraging that market were disrupted by the pandemic, and the spread narrowed when these mechanisms returned. The area on the chart above in yellow indicates the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Note that gold prices in Shanghai have been persistently elevated relative to those of New York.
The G-7 implemented sanctions on Russia in the wake of the invasion, and perhaps the most draconian of those was the move to freeze Russian foreign reserves. This move raised fears in other nations that if they were to see relations with the US deteriorate, then similar actions might be deployed against them as well. So, in response, foreign governments have been increasing their gold purchases. Since the Chinese are concerned about the vulnerability of their massive US Treasury holdings, it appears they have been aggressively buying gold to the point where the Shanghai price has been persistently above the New York price.
It’s still too early to determine what impact this spread relationship will have on the overall gold price in the future, but this situation is a good example of when a previously quiescent variable, well contained in epsilon, suddenly becomes important. Faced with a model that is deviating from its past performance, the challenge for the analyst is to determine the cause. We believe that Asian buying, both from central banks and private investors, is the cause in this case. This condition could mean that when traditional bullish conditions for gold return (e.g., lower interest rates, weaker dollar, central bank balance sheet expansion), the price of gold could move sharply higher, bolstered by this new factor — enhanced Asian buying.
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Podcast – #49 “Mid-Year Geopolitical Outlook: Uncertainty Reigns” (Posted 6/17/24)
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Report – Mid-Year Geopolitical Outlook: Uncertainty Reigns (June 17, 2024)
by Patrick Fearon-Hernandez, CFA, Thomas Wash, Daniel Ortwerth, CFA, and Bill O-Grady | PDF
As the first half draws to a close, we typically update our geopolitical outlook for the remainder of the year. This report is less a series of predictions as it is a list of potential geopolitical issues that we believe will dominate the international landscape for the rest of the year. The report is not designed to be exhaustive. Rather, it focuses on the “big picture” conditions that we think will affect policy and markets going forward. We have subtitled this report “Uncertainty Reigns” to reflect the fact that chaos and unpredictability have become entrenched as the post-Cold War era of globalization gives way to a new period of Great Power competition. Our issues are listed in order of importance.
Issue #1: China – South China Sea
Issue #2: Russia-Ukraine-NATO
Issue #3: Israel-Hamas-Iran
Issue #4: The US Elections
Issue #5: US Defense Rebuilding
Issue #6: Global Monetary Policy
Don’t miss our accompanying podcasts, available on our website and most podcast platforms: Apple | Spotify
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Podcast – #48 “The Philippines, China & Escalation in the South China Sea” (Posted 6/3/24)
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Philippines, China & Escalation in the South China Sea (June 3, 2024)
by Daniel Ortwerth, CFA | PDF
On the short list of seemingly constant topics in the news today is the rising tension between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Across the spectrum of issues, disagreement between these two great powers seems increasingly unavoidable. Geopolitical developments in every corner of the globe often find a way to become another point of US-Chinese friction. When conditions become stormy like this, the question arises as to whether this tension will escalate into greater conflict, possibly even outright war. If it does, what will be the flashpoint? Where will the spark occur?
A storm is currently brewing in the South China Sea (SCS) that might make this body of water the area of greatest risk. Like so many conflicts in history, this one does not involve a direct conflict between the opposing great powers, but rather a local dispute involving a small but significant country, the Philippines, and China. This dispute holds the potential to stir up a storm that engulfs the region or that even spills into the world beyond it.
This report explains how the current Philippine-Chinese dispute developed and how it could further escalate. After providing a recent history of key developments in the SCS, we explain in detail the dispute at hand. Next, we show the strands that connect the tiny outcropping of land at the heart of the dispute to the broader world. As usual, we conclude with a review of implications for investors.
Don’t miss our accompanying podcasts, available on our website and most podcast platforms: Apple | Spotify
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Podcast – #46 “The Changing Face of War” (Posted 4/22/24)
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Changing Face of War (April 22, 2024)
by Daniel Ortwerth, CFA | PDF
If the United States were at war with another great power, would we know it? How would we know it? These questions might seem absurd but consider that the US has not fought a war against a major world power since 1945. Meanwhile, when the US has engaged in conflicts against weaker and regional powers since World War II, the beginnings and endings of the conflicts have tended to be blurred. Technology has advanced in ways unimaginable to the 1945 mind. This has changed the nature of life, and it has also changed the face of war. In this report, we consider how the contours of that face have changed over time, what it takes to recognize war in the 21st century, and whether the US and its allies might already be at war with China and its allies.
By addressing key elements of technological advancement and geopolitical evolution, we explore how 80 years have changed the face of war. We consider aspects of war that have not and never will change as well as what has changed, and we drive to the bottom line for investors. In our view, that bottom line has remained constant through time as war is expensive, citizens pay the price, and that price largely manifests itself in the form of higher inflation and long-term interest rates. Will the US ever go to war again with another major power in a way that we can recognize? Will we know it when we are there? These questions are harder to answer than ever before, but investors can still prepare.