Vivek Kaul
The Congress campaign in Gujarat is getting desperate. Sample this.
“When it comes to GDP growth, Gujarat is lagging behind states like Bihar, Odhisa and Chhattishgarh,” the Union Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said while addressing a public meeting in Gandhinagar. “Narendra Modi says Gujarat is most progressive, but if you have been to other states, Bihar, Odisha and Chattisgarh are much ahead,” he added.
When Indian politicians start using terms like Gross Domestic Product growth with voters you know that they don’t have much else to talk about.
Data from the planning commission shows that the state gross domestic product (GDP) at current prices (which does not adjust for inflation) of Bihar, Odisha and Chattisgarh grew at the rates of 20.4%, 16% and 15.3% in 2011-2012.
In comparison Gujarat grew at 15.8%. So the economic growth (which is what the state GDP measures) of Bihar and Odisha was faster than that of Gujarat. But Gujarat grew faster than Chattisgarh.
But as the old saying goes we should be comparing Apples with Apples and not Apples with Oranges. And to add to that as one of my teachers used to say “percentages should be used carefully lest we draw the wrong conclusions”.
Let me deviate a little and give an example to explain what I am basically trying to say. Let us say you earn Rs 10,000 a month and your income jumps to Rs 20,000 a month, a gain of 100%. On the other hand let’s say you earn Rs 1 lakh a month and your income jumps to Rs 1.3 lakh a month, or a gain of 30%.
So even though the percentage gain in the first case is more, the absolute gain is more in the second case. Hence, when we are talking percentages it is important to keep the base number in mind. So Bihar did grow faster than Gujarat but it was because of what economists like to call the “base effect”.
Gujarat’s state GDP in 2010-2011 was Rs 5,13,173 crore. It went up by 15.8% to Rs 5,94,369 crore in 2011-2012. In comparison Bihar’s GDP for 2010-2011 was Rs 2,17,814 crore. And it grew by 20.4% to Rs 2,62,230 crore in 2011-2012.
The point being Bihar is growing on a lower base and that’s why the percentage growth is higher. The same argument holds for Odisha as well.
The other point that comes here is the population of the state. Bihar’s state GDP went up by Rs 44,416 crore to Rs 2,62,230 crore. This gain of Rs 44,416 crore was spread across a population of 10.38 crore people. This implies a gain of Rs 4,279 per individual who lived in Bihar.
Now let’s do the same calculation for the state of Gujarat. The GDP of the state went up by Rs 81,196 crore to Rs 5,94,369 crore. This gain of Rs 81,196 crore was spread across a population of Gujarat is 6.04 crore as per the 2011 census. Hence, this implies a gain Rs 13,447 per individual who lives in Gujarat.
This basically means that the growth in Gujarat at an individual level was three times that of Bihar in 2011-2012. Hence, Sharma’s argument that Bihar grew faster than Gujarat doesn’t really work.
And Sharma is not the only one attacking Modi. Ajay Maken, the youngest minister in the Union Cabinet alleged at a rally that the ruling BJP government was neck-deep in corruption in the name of development. Well that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. As has been proven time and over the last few years, India hasn’t seen a more corrupt government than the current UPA government ruling the country.
Mani Shankar Aiyer, a former minister in the UPA government, called Modi Ravana and asatya ka saudagar. He also called him a paani purush. Congress Rajya Sabha MP Hussain Dalwai, said “Modi is just a mouse before Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel”.
Bharat Solanki, Union Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation, decided to beat all the abuses being hurled at Modi and termed him as “Nathuram Godse” and alleged that “under the BJP rule in Gandhi’s Gujarat not truth but lies carry more currency”.
Elections campaigns can get nasty. But the Congress doesn’t seem to have learned from its 2007 blunder when Sonia Gandhi called Modi a “maut ka saudagar”. While it might have sounded like a brilliant turn of phrase to the Congress speechwriter who wrote Sonia’s speech, it clearly backfired on the party.
The issue here is what does the Congress attack Narendra Modi with? Economic development as I showed above is healthy in Gujarat. It is one of the few states in the country which has a power surplus. The roads are ‘just’ fine and the cities are largely clean. Modi doesn’t really have any big corruption charges against him unlike the Congress government as well as the party.
So what do you do in a situation like this? You get personal and attack on Modi’s big blip, the 2002 riots in the state, and hope that it creates enough fear in the minds of the voter and he decides to vote for the Congress.
But does the issue really matter to the major portion of the voters in Gujarat? The answer is no. As Aakar Patel, a known Modi baiter, recently wrote in the Open magazine “Gujaratis like to think they are great nationalists. It doesn’t occur to them that India suffers every time they triumphantly keep memories of the massacre alive, by backing the man first unwilling or unable to stop it, now too incompetent to prosecute its participants. They are voting Caesar(i.e. Modi) back to power.”
Hence, Congress’ negative campaign isn’t really going to work. In fact, it might work in favour of Modi, who will continue to espouse the cause of Gujarati Asmita and portray himself as a lone gladiator taking on the Congress baddies.
Also negative campaigns do not really work. Take the case of the recent Presidential elections in the United States. Romney’s attacks on Obama got too personal towards the end of the campaign. Donald Trump, a Romney supporter, wanted to see the college records of Obama. The insinuation here was that Obama may got into college in America as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia. Trump also wanted access to Obama’s passport. The insinuation here was that would allow him (i.e Trump) to prove something Muslim about Obama.
As marketing guru Al Ries told me in a recent interview on Firstpost “Mitt Romney spent most of his time attacking Barack Obama. That’s the wrong strategy. What a politician needs to do is to offer a positive concept first and then point out that his or her opponent lacks this concept.”
Some of the biggest state elections in India have seen winning parties run extremely positive campaigns. Akhilesh Yadav ran the umeed ki cycle campaign in Uttar Pradesh and Mamata Banerjee ran the poriborton campaign in West Bengal. While they are busy making a mess of the states after coming to power, but then that is a different issue all together.
In comparison. the Congress party doesn’t really have any strategy in place when it comes to taking on Narendra Modi. And what it is doing clearly won’t work.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on November 12, 2012.
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])
Mitt Romney
Why Brand Obama trounced misbranded Mitt Romney
Al Ries is a marketing consultant who coined the term “positioning” and is the author of such marketing classics (with Jack Trout) as The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing and Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. He is also the co-founder and chairman of the Atlanta-based consulting firm Ries & Ries with his partner and daughter, Laura Ries. Along with Laura he has written bestsellers like War in the Boardroom and The Origin of Branding. In this interview he speaks to Vivek Kaul and analyses why brand Barack Obama emerged stronger than brand Mitt Romney.
How would you define the brand Barack Obama? What are the three characteristics that you would attribute to him?
Consistent. The three characteristics I would attribute to Barack Obama are (1) Consistency. (2) Consistency, and (3) Consistency. He took office promising “change.” And the major changes he promised include creating jobs, reforming the health-care system and reducing the deficits by increasing taxes on the wealthy. He has never wavered from these three basic principles.
Brand experts talk about a strong story accompanying a brand. What do you think is Obama’s story?
His story is his climb from poverty to a law degree from Harvard, our most-prestigious university. It includes his birth to a Kenyon father and an American mother, one black and one white. He is unique. Very few politicians have a story quite like Barack Obama. One exception is John McCain, who was defeated by Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential elections. John McCain’s story is the five-and-a-half years he spent in Vietnam as a prisoner of war and the torture he endured. This created a tremendous amount of sympathy for him. But he lost the election because he was handicapped by the negative reaction to the eight years of the previous President, George W. Bush.
What are the right things that Obama did to build brand Obama in the run up to the elections?
His entire campaign was built around a single idea and he expressed it with a “two-sided slogan.” A two-sided slogan is like a two-sided knife. It cuts both ways. It says something positive about your brand and something negative about the competition.
Could elaborate on that?
Take “Believe in America,” Mitt Romney’s slogan. It’s a nice thought, but it’s a one-sided slogan. It says something positive about Mitt Romney, but what does it say about his opponent?
That Barack Obama doesn’t believe in America? A country that educated him at Harvard. A country that elected him to the Senate and the Presidency. A country that made him wealthy and world famous. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in America? Highly unlikely.
What does Obama believe in? The number one issue among voters is “jobs,” but he couldn’t claim much progress on this issue because of the economy. His best approach was to plead for more time to “finish the job.” So he used the slogan “Forward.”
And what did that imply?
His “Forward” slogan implied that Republicans want to go backwards to policies that failed in the past. Forward is a great slogan because it cuts both ways. This makes two in a row for Barack Obama. His 2008 slogan, “Change we can believe in,” was also a two-sided slogan. With the Republicans in power, John McCain couldn’t exactly advocate “change,” because that would offend his base. The best he could do would be to imply that he would do the job “better than Bush.”
What are the things that went wrong for Obama?
Nothing. The American economy is in bad shape. Deficits are enormous. The Republicans should have won in an easy election, but their marketing strategy was bad.
Which is the brand that you think comes closest to brand Obama?
Virgin might come close because it’s a brand associated with Richard Branson, a unique individual with many stories.
When it comes to brand names the brand name Obama is fairly different from the usual. How does that work/not work?
What many companies forget is that a brand name should be “unique and different.” The biggest mistake companies make is trying to create a brand name that says something about the product or service they are offering. A typical example is “Seattle’s Best Coffee,” a high-end coffee chain launched in America. But the competitor was Starbucks, a unique and different name unrelated to coffee. Starbucks is a far better name than Seattle’s Best Coffee, which is a generic name. Ask people, What is Seattle’s Best Coffee? And they are likely to say, Starbucks.
Could you give us another example from business to substantiate your point?
Google is a typical example. When you start with a unique name without any specific meaning, you can make the name mean whatever you want it to. Yesterday, Google meant nothing. Today, Google means “search” and it’s become one of the most valuable brands in America. On the stock market today, Google is worth $220.1 billion.
How would you define the brand Mitt Romney? What are the three characteristics that you would attribute to him?
Romney is a “business” leader and the attributes voters attribute to him are all based on his business experience. Businesses should (1) Make money. (2) Reduce expenses. (3) Avoid taxes legally.
What is that made brand Romney attractive to the white American male? And what is it that made him unattractive towards everyone else?
The white American male is focused on becoming a business success. He expects to work hard and be rewarded when his hard work pays off. The white American male resents having to share the rewards of his hard work with the government in the form of higher taxes. Women are more family oriented. They don’t mind sharing with less-fortunate individuals. That’s why many of them voted for Barack Obama.
Which is the brand (or even brands) of a product or a service that you think comes closest to brand Romney? And why?
You could list almost every American corporation from IBM to Microsoft. The general perception is that companies want to increase profits, reduce expenses and find a way to avoid taxes (legally.)
You have always said that marketing and branding are all about focus. So who do you think had more focus Obama or Romney? And why?
Barack Obama was focused on just one thing: “Let me finish the job.” That idea was expressed in his slogan “Forward.” Mitt Romney was focused on attacking Obama for the lack of jobs and the high deficits. All true, of course, but that’s a losing political strategy. A politician needs to first have a “positive” focus. I think Mitt Romney should have focused on his business experience and then used a slogan like “Let’s run the government like a business.”
I was reading somewhere that both Obama and Romney employed a technique called brand hijacking in the elections. People who type one candidate’s name into Google’s search box in some markets have seen ads for his opponent. A search for “Barack Obama,” for instance, has yielded ads for Romney, while entering “Mitt Romney” has resulted in ads for Obama. Romney has used a similar tactic on Facebook. How does that help? Would you advocate something like that in the future?
I would not advocate something like this. While it might be effective with some people, it might turn off others.
What are the branding mistakes that Romney make? How difficult was it to beat an incumbent President who was struggling with the economy and most of everything else?
Mitt Romney spent most of his time attacking Barack Obama. That’s the wrong strategy. What a politician needs to do is to offer a positive concept first (business experience) and then point out that his or her opponent lacks this concept. (Barack Obama has never worked in the private sector). It should have been easy to beat an incumbent President with his track record.
I was reading an article on Fast Company and it said “politics, after all, is about marketing — about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume.” Would you agree with something like that and why?
Absolutely. It’s all about perceptions, not reality. That’s what marketing is all about, creating positive perceptions in the minds of consumers.
What are the branding lessons that companies can learn from Obama’s successful campaign?
Years ago, Bill Clinton became famous for running a campaign which his consultants dubbed: “It’s the economy, Stupid.” Today, a company should adopt something similar. It’s what I call the KISS approach. “Keep it simple, Stupid.”
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on November 8, 2012. http://www.firstpost.com/world/why-brand-obama-trounced-misbranded-mitt-romney-518734.html
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])
Obama is good for gold: Target $3,500 by 2013-end?
Vivek Kaul
So now that Barack Obama is all set for a second term as the President of the United States of America, gold is set for another rally. As I write this gold is quoting at $1723.2 per ounce (1 troy ounce equals 31.1grams), up $40 or 2.4% in a day.
And this rally is likely to continue. There are several reasons for the same.
a) The Second Term President phenomenon: Second term presidents in the United States(US) usually tend to go overboard with spending money. This extra spending cannot be always matched by an increase in government revenue and is matched by printing dollars to meet this gap. This money printing devalues the dollar.
As Jan Skoyles the head of research at a U.K. bullion dealer called The Real Asset Co., put it in a recent research note “our research also found Presidents granted a second-term have a marvellous time showing everyone just how much money they can spend, devaluing the currency further and making that precious metal glister even more. It seems that during their first terms Presidents are more tempered than in their second. Is this because they decide to blow the doors off and show everyone what a great person they are, leaving the next guy to pick up the mess?”
And the numbers tell the story. Gold rallied 88.8% during George Bush Junior’s second term. It had rallied only 24.6% in his first term. The same stands true for Bill Clinton as well, with gold losing 5.6% in his first term and gaining 16.9% in his second term. The table here tells the complete story.
b) Democrats destroy the dollar more than Republicans: The Democratic Party to which Obama belongs, has a better track record of destroying the dollar and hence pushing up the gold price. As Skoyles puts it “The evidence showing Democrats destroying the dollar more than Republicans…is over-whelming. Even though Democrats prove to be the best party for gold investors worried about the gold price, the Republicans don’t do too badly themselves – accounting for a net increase of 121.27% across their terms in office since Nixon, versus 358.68% for the Democrats.” Richard Nixon was the President of America between 1969 and 1974.
c) Ben Bernanke will continue to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States: One of the things that Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger to Barack Obama, had made very clear was that he would fire Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, the American central bank, if he became the President of the United States.
As he had said in August earlier this year “I would want to select someone new and someone who shared my economic views…I want someone to provide monetary stability that leads to a strong dollar and confidence that America is not going to go down the road that other nations have gone down, to their peril.” His running mate, Paul Ryan wanted dollar to be “Sound Money” again. “We want to pursue a sound-money strategy so that we can get back the King Dollar,” Ryan said.
With Obama getting a second term, Ben Bernanke is likely to continue as the Chairman. Also he might now even get a third term when his current term ends in 2014. This means that the easy money policy run by the Federal Reserve is likely to continue and this can only mean good things for the price of gold.
Bernanke has been running a policy of quantitative easing and printing dollars, in the hope that banks lend these dollars, and people spend them, and this in turn helps in the revival of the American economy. But this money printing has also led to a stupendous rise in the price of gold.
Any round of quantitative easing ensures that there are more dollars in the financial system than before. The threat is that the greater number of dollars will chase the same number of goods and services. This will lead to an increase in their prices. But this hasn’t happened till now. Nevertheless that hasn’t stopped investors from buying gold to protect themselves from this debasement of money. Gold cannot be debased. Unlike paper money it cannot be created out of thin air.
During earlier days, paper money was backed by gold or silver. When governments printed more paper money than the precious metals backing it, people simply turned up with their paper at the central bank and government mints, and demanded that paper money be converted into gold or silver. Now, whenever people see more and more of paper money being printed, the smarter ones simply go out and buy that gold. Hence, bad money (that is, paper money) is driving out good money (that is, gold) away from the market.
d) The US Fed will go slow on manipulating the gold market: Another theory going around is that the US Federal Reserve has been manipulating the price of gold over the years with help from bullion banks. As the gold expert Tehmaas Gorimaar writes “One form of manipulation is the through setting of low lease rates for gold and silver. Low rates encourage bullion banks like J.P Morgan and HSBC to borrow gold and silver from central banks, dump the metal on the market and use the proceeds to invest in paper assets, thereby driving up the prices of these assets.” (you can read a more detailed argument on this here).
This manipulation to hold back the price of gold seems to have gone up in the run up to the Presidential election. As Gorimaar puts it“Because the dollar, like all other currencies, is a fiat currency, and gold is the antithesis of the dollar. A runaway gold price means that the so called “strong dollar policy” touted by American presidents isn’t working. Also, higher gold and a lower dollar would mean higher commodity prices, since commodities are priced in dollars. A weak dollar would also have given Mitt Romney more fodder for attack.” Hence, Bernanke was helping Obama here. Now what would be the quid pro quo for the same? Another term for Bernanke as the Chairman?
With the elections over the Federal Reserve is likely to take a breather on this front and gold is set to rally. “I think you’ll see gold at $3500 per ounce and silver above $100 per ounce by the end of 2013. This is because of the extreme suppression of their prices in this election year,” says Gorimaar.
e) Does that mean gold will rally in India? While the gold is set to rally in dollars, for Indians to make money it has to rally in rupee terms. For that to happen the Indian rupee either has to remain at the current levels against the dollar or depreciate further. Let us try and understand this through an example. Gold currently quotes at around $1723 per ounce. One dollar is worth Rs 54.3. This means one ounce of gold is priced at Rs 93558.9 per ounce (one troy ounce equals 31.1grams). If one dollar was worth Rs 50, then gold would have been at Rs 86,150 per ounce. If one dollar was worth Rs 60, gold would have been at Rs 1.03,380 per ounce. Hence more the rupee depreciates against the dollar; the greater will be the return on gold in rupee terms. For that to happen the UPA government needs to continue running the screwed up economic policy that it has been over the last few years. And that’s one thing they have been doing even better than all the scams that they have been running. So gold should rally in rupee terms as well.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on November 7, 2012. http://www.firstpost.com/economy/obama-is-good-for-gold-target-3500-by-2013-end-517752.html)
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])
Why you should be nice to your mom – and buy some gold
Vivek Kaul
So let me start this piece by admitting Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of United States (the American central bank) has proven me wrong.
I was wrong when I recently said that the Federal Reserve would not initiate a third round of quantitative easing (QE), before the November 6 presidential elections in the United States. (you can read about it here).
Bernanke announced late last night that the Federal Reserve would buy mortgage backed securities worth $40billion every month. This will continue till the job scenario in the United States improves substantially. The Federal Reserve will print money to buy the mortgage back securities.
I concluded that the Federal Reserve wouldn’t announce any QE till November 6, primarily on account of the fact that Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for the Presidential elections, has been against any sort of QE to revive the economy.
“I don’t think QE-II was terribly effective. I think a QE-III and other Fed stimulus is not going to help this economy…I think that is the wrong way to go. I think it also seeds the kind of potential for inflation down the road that would be harmful to the value of the dollar and harmful to the stability of our nation’s needs,” Romney told Fox News on 23 August. This had held back the Federal Reserve from initiating QE III.
But from the looks of it Bernanke doesn’t feel that Romney has a chance at winning and that he is more likely than not going to continue working with Barack Obama, the current American President.
This round of quantitative easing is going to help Obama and hurt Romney. Let me explain. The theory behind quantitative easing is that when the Federal Reserve buys mortgage backed securities (in this case) by printing dollars, it pumps in more money into the economy. With more money in the economy, banks and financial institutions it is felt will lend that money and businesses and consumers will borrow. This will mean that spending by both businesses and consumers will start to up. Once that happens the economic scenario will start improving, which will lead to more jobs being created.
But as I said this is the theoretical part. And theory and practice do not always go together. Both American businesses and consumers have been shying away from borrowing. Hence, all this money floating around has found its way into stock and commodity markets around the world.
As more money enters the stock market, stock prices go up and this creates the “wealth effect”. People who invest money in the market feel richer and then they tend to spend part of the accumulated wealth. This, in turn, helps economic growth.
As Gary Dorsch, an investment newsletter writer, said in a recent column, “Historical observation reveals that the direction of the stock market has a notable influence over consumer confidence and spending levels. In particular, the top 20% of wealthiest Americans account for 40% of the spending in the US economy, so the Fed hopes that by inflating the value of the stock market, wealthier Americans would decide to spend more. It’s the Fed’s version of “trickle down” economics, otherwise known as the “wealth effect.””
When this happens, the economy is likely to grow faster and hence, people are more likely to vote for the incumbent President. As Dorsch explains “Incumbent presidents are always hard to beat. The powers of the presidency go a long way…In the 1972 election year, when Nixon pressured Arthur Burns, then the Fed chairman, to expand the money supply with the aim of reducing unemployment, and boosting the economy in order to insure Nixon’s re-election.”
Bernanke is looking to do the same, even though he has denied it completely. “We have tried very, very hard, and I think we’ve been successful, at the Federal Reserve to be non-partisan and apolitical…We make our decisions based entirely on the state of the economy,” the Financial Times quoted Bernanke as saying. Given this, Romney has been a vocal critic of quantitative easing knowing that another round of money printing will clearly benefit Obama.
Other than Obama and the stock markets, the other big beneficiary of QE III will be gold. The yellow metal has gone up by around 2.2% to $1768 per ounce, since the announcement for QE III was made. In fact the expectation of QE III has been on since the beginning of September after Ben Bernanke dropped hints in a speech. Gold has risen by 7.3% since the beginning of this month.
This is primarily because any round of quantitative easing ensures that there are more dollars in the financial system than before. The threat is that the greater number of dollars will chase the same number of goods and services. This will lead to an increase in their prices. But this hasn’t happened till now. Nevertheless that hasn’t stopped investors from buying gold to protect themselves from this debasement of money. Gold cannot be debased. Unlike paper money it cannot be created out of thin air.
During earlier days, paper money was backed by gold or silver. When governments printed more paper money than the precious metals backing it, people simply turned up with their paper at the central bank and government mints, and demanded that paper money be converted into gold or silver. Now, whenever people see more and more of paper money being printed, the smarter ones simply go out and buy that gold. Hence, bad money (that is, paper money) is driving out good money (that is, gold) away from the market.
But that’s just one part of the story. The governments and central banks around the world, led by the Federal Reserve of United States and the European Central Bank, are likely to continue printing more money, in the hope that people spend this money and this revives economic growth. This in turn increases the threat of inflation which would mean that the price of gold is likely to keep going up. “Gold tends to benefit from easy-money policies as investors utilize the precious metal as a hedge against potential inflation that could ultimately result from the Fed’s policies,” Steven Russolillo, wrote on WSJ Blogs.
Market watchers have also started to believe that the Federal Reserve is now only bothered about economic growth and has abandoned the goal of keeping inflation under control. Growth and inflation control are typically the twin goals of any central bank.
“They are emphasizing the growth mandate, and that means they don’t care about inflation other than giving lip service to it,” Axel Merk, chief investment officer at Merk Funds, told Reuters. “The price of gold will do very well in the years to come,”he added.
Something that Jeffrey Sherman, commodities portfolio manager of DoubleLine Capital, agrees with. “The Fed’s inflationary behavior should be bearish for the dollar in the long run and drive investors to seek protection via the gold market,” he told Reuters.
Also unlike previous two rounds of money printing there are no upper limits on this QE, although at $40billion a month it’s much smaller in size. QE II, the second round of money printing, was $600billion in size.
Something that can bring down the returns on gold in rupee terms is the appreciation of the rupee against the dollar. Yesterday the rupee appreciated against the dollar by nearly 2%. This is happening primarily because the UPA government has suddenly turned reformist. (To understand the complete relationship between rupee, dollar and gold, read this).
In the end let me quote William Bonner & Addison Wiggin, the authors of Empire of Debt — The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis. As they say “There is never a good time to die. Nor is there a good time for a crash or a slump. Still, death happens. Be prepared. Say something nice to your mother. Offer a bum a drink. And buy gold.”
So be nice to your mother and buy gold.
Disclosure: This writer has investments in gold through the mutual fund route.
(The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on September 15,2012. http://www.firstpost.com/investing/why-you-should-be-nice-to-your-mom-and-buy-some-gold-456915.html)
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])
How Obama and Manmohan Singh will drive up the price of gold
Vivek Kaul
‘Miss deMaas,’ Van Veeteren decided, ‘if there’s anything I’ve learned in this job, it’s that there are more connections in the world than there are particles in the universe.’
He paused and allowed her green eyes to observe him.
‘The hard bit is finding the right ones,’ he added. – Chief Inspector Van Veeteren in Håkan Nesser’s The Mind’s Eye
I love reading police procedurals, a genre of crime fiction in which murders are investigated by police detectives. These detectives are smart but they are nowhere as smart as Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. They look for clues and the right connections, to link them up and figure out who the murderer is.
And unlike Poirot or Holmes they take time to come to their conclusions. Often they are wrong and take time to get back on the right track. But what they don’t stop doing is thinking of connections.
Like Chief Inspector Van Veeteren, a fictional character created by Swedish writer Håkan Nesser, says above “there are more connections in the world than there are particles in the universe… The hard bit is finding the right ones.”
The murder is caught only when the right connections are made.
The same is true about gold as well. There are several connections that are responsible for the recent rapid rise in the price of the yellow metal. And these connections need to continue if the gold rally has to continue.
As I write this, gold is quoting at $1734 per ounce (1 ounce equals 31.1 grams). Gold is traded in dollar terms internationally.
It has given a return of 8.4% since the beginning of August and 5.2% since the beginning of this month in dollar terms. In rupee terms gold has done equally well and crossed an all time high of Rs 32,500 per ten grams.
So what is driving up the price of gold?
The Federal Reserve of United States (the American central bank like the Reserve Bank of India in India) is expected to announce the third round of money printing, technically referred to as quantitative easing (QE). The idea being that with more money in the economy, banks will lend, and consumers and businesses will borrow and spend that money. And this in turn will revive the slow American economy.
Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has been resorting to what investment letter writer Gary Dorsch calls “open mouth operations” i.e. dropping hints that QE III is on its way, for a while now. The earlier two rounds of money printing by the Federal Reserve were referred as QE I and QE II. Hence, the expected third round is being referred to as QE III.
At its last meeting held on July 31-August 1, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) led by Bernanke said in a statement “The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments and will provide additional accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.” The phrase to mark here is additional accommodation which is a hint at another round of quantitative easing. Gold has rallied by more than 8% since then.
But that was more than a month back. Ben Bernanke has dropped more hints since then. In a speech titled Monetary Policy since the Onset of the Crisis made at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Symposium, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on August 31, 2012, Bernanke, said: “Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”
Central bank governors are known not to speak in language that everybody can understand. As Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve before Bernanke took over once famously said ““If you think you understood what I was saying, you weren’t listening.”
But the phrase to mark in Bernanke’s speech is “additional policy accommodation” which is essentially a euphemism for quantitative easing or more printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve.
The question that crops up here is that FOMC in its August 1 statement more or less said the same thing. Why didn’t that statement attract much interest? And why did Bernanke’s statement at Jackson Hole get everybody excited and has led to the yellow metal rising by more than 5% since the beginning of this month.
The answer lies in what Bernanke said in a speech at the same venue two years back. “We will continue to monitor economic developments closely and to evaluate whether additional monetary easing would be beneficial. In particular, the Committee is prepared to provide additional monetary accommodation through unconventional measures if it proves necessary, especially if the outlook were to deteriorate significantly,” he said.
The two statements have an uncanny similarity to them. In 2010 the phrase used was “additional monetary accommodation”. In 2012, the phrase used became “additional policy accommodation”.
Bernanke’s August 2010 statement was followed by the second round of quantitative easing or QE II as it was better known as. The Federal Reserve pumped in $600billion of new money into the economy by printing it. Drawing from this, the market is expecting that the Federal Reserve will resort to another round of money printing by the time November is here.
Any round of quantitative easing ensures that there are more dollars in the financial system than before. To protect themselves from this debasement, people buy another asset; that is, gold in this case, something which cannot be debased. During earlier days, paper money was backed by gold or silver. When governments printed more paper money than they had precious metal backing it, people simply turned up with their paper at the central bank and demanded it be converted into gold or silver. Now, whenever people see more and more of paper money, the smarter ones simply go out there and buy that gold. Also this lot of investors doesn’t wait for the QE to start. Any hint of QE is enough for them to start buying gold.
But why is the Fed just dropping hints and not doing some real QE?
The past two QEs have had the blessings of the American President Barack Obama. But what has held back Bernanke from printing money again is some direct criticism from Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate against the current President Barack Obama, for the forthcoming Presidential elections.
“I don’t think QE-2 was terribly effective. I think a QE-3 and other Fed stimulus is not going to help this economy…I think that is the wrong way to go. I think it also seeds the kind of potential for inflation down the road that would be harmful to the value of the dollar and harmful to the stability of our nation’s needs,” Romney told Fox News on August 23.
Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate also echoed his views when he said “Sound money… We want to pursue a sound-money strategy so that we can get back the King Dollar.”
This has held back the Federal Reserve from resorting to QE III because come November and chances are that Bernanke will be working with Romney and Obama. Romney has made clear his views on Bernanke by saying that “I would want to select someone new and someone who shared my economic views.”
So what are the connections?
So gold is rising in dollar terms primarily because the market expects Ben Bernanke to resort to another round of money printing. But at the same time it is important that Barack Obama wins the Presidential elections scheduled on November 6, 2012.
Experts following the US elections have recently started to say that the elections are too close to call. As Minaz Merchant wrote in the Times of India “Obama’s steady 3% lead over Romney has evaporated in recent opinion polls… Ironically, one big demographic slice of America’s electorate could deny Obama a second term as president: white men. Up to an extraordinary 75% of American Caucasian males, the latest opinion polls confirm, are likely to vote against Obama… the Republican ace is the white male who makes up 35% of America’s population. If three out of four white men, cutting across Democratic and Republican party lines, vote for Mitt Romney, he starts with a huge electoral advantage, locking up over 25% of the total electorate.” (You can read the complete piece here)
If gold has to continue to go up it is important that Obama wins. And for that to happen it is important that a major portion of white American men vote for Obama. While Federal Reserve is an independent body, the Chairman is appointed by the President. Also, a combative Fed which goes against the government is rarity. So if Mitt Romney wins the elections on November 6, 2012, it is unlikely that Ben Bernanke will resort to another round of money printing unless Romney changes his mind by then. And that would mean no more rallies gold.
But even all this is not enough
All the connections explained above need to come together to ensure that gold rallies in dollar terms. But gold rallying in dollar terms doesn’t necessarily mean returns in rupee terms as well. For that to happen the Indian rupee has to continue to be weak against the dollar. As I write this one dollar is worth around Rs 55.5. At the same time an ounce of gold is worth $1734. As we know one ounce is worth 31.1grams. Hence, one ounce of gold in rupee terms costs Rs96,237 (Rs 1734 x Rs 55.5). This calculation for the ease of simplicity does not take into account the costs involved in converting currencies or taxes for that matter.
If one dollar was worth Rs 60, then one ounce of gold in rupee terms would have cost around Rs 1.04 lakh. If one dollar was worth Rs 50, then one ounce of gold in rupee terms would have been Rs 86,700. So the moral of the story is that other than the price of gold in dollar terms it is also important what the dollar rupee exchange rate is.
So the ideal situation for the Indian investor to make money by investing in gold is that the price of gold in dollar terms goes up, and at the same time the rupee either continues to be at the current levels against the dollar or depreciates further, and thus spruces up the overall return.
For this to happen Manmohan Singh has to keep screwing the Indian economy and ensure that foreign investors continue to stay away. If foreign investors decide to bring dollars into India then they will have to exchange these dollars for rupees. This will increase the demand for the rupee and ensure that it apprecaits against the dollar. This will bring down the returns that Indian investors can earn on gold. As we saw earlier at Rs60to a dollar one ounce of gold is worth Rs 1.04 lakh, but at Rs 50, it is worth Rs 86,700.
One way of keeping the foreign investors away is to ensure that the fiscal deficit of the Indian government keeps increasing. And that’s precisely what Singh and his government have been doing. At the time the budget was presented in mid March, the fiscal deficit was expected to be at 5.1% of GDP. Now it is expected to cross 6%. As the Times of India recently reported “The government is slowly reconciling to the prospect of ending the year with a fiscal deficit of over 6% of gross domestic project,higher than the 5.1% it has budgeted for, due to its inability to reduce subsidies, especially on fuel.
Sources said that internally there is acknowledgement that the fiscal deficit the difference between spending and tax and non-tax revenue and disinvestment receipts would be much higher than the calculations made by Pranab Mukherjee when he presented the Budget.” (You can read the complete story here).
To conclude
So for gold to continue to rise there are several connections that need to come together. Let me summarise them here:
1. Ben Bernanke needs to keep hinting at QE till November
2. Obama needs to win the American Presidential elections in November
3. For Obama to win the white American male needs to vote for him
4. If Obama wins,Bernanke has to announce and carry out QE III
5. With all this, the rupee needs to maintain its current level against the dollar or depreciate further.
6. And above all this, Manmohan Singh needs to keep thinking of newer ways of pulling the Indian economy down
(The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on September 11,2012. http://www.firstpost.com/economy/how-obama-and-manmohan-will-drive-up-the-price-of-gold-450440.html)
(Vivek Kaul is a writer and can be reached at [email protected])