How the PM blogosphere behaves like a cult

I first started seriously browsing the PM blog sites at the end of 2010. I'd traded for years (stocks mostly), but was a relative newcomer to the world of investing in gold and silver. I was struck by the huge amount of apparently helpful online advice, charts, and discussion, all dedicated to gold and silver. I'd never had such a resource to draw from when trading the FTSE, so I became something of an avid reader of these sites. A whole new world was opened up to me: one of Turds and talking bears and Keisers and KWNs and Zero Hedges; not to mention Harvey's Organ [sic] and too many others to name.

In years of trading I'd never come across all this kind of stuff before. Such passion! Such depth of feeling about conspiracies and manipulation. And the stories seemed to work: my new investments in gold and silver performed stunningly, and I cheer-leaded the near parabolic price rises along with the all the other obsessive readers.

But something never sat right with me. Something on which I could never quite put my finger. Amidst the charts and the stories (which even back then, before the crashes, I knew to be demonstrably ridiculous) there always felt like there was a dark side. And I'm not talking about Blythe and JPM here. I was kicked off numerous blogs for asking reasonable questions. The venom I received in April 2011 for pointing out the silver RSI had prompted me to sell my stash (and advising others to do the same) was remarkable.

I switched from participant to observer, and started to pay closer attention. Every psychological tool in the book was being employed: confirmation bias, creation and deployment of memes, use of single sources to imply many sources, aggressive trampling of contrary opinions, herd mentality, isolation of 'us' from 'them'. The works. It was these observations that encouraged me to start contributing to Screwtape, and to look more deeply and systematically into what I term the silverogosphere.

Entirely by chance, last week I came across some research which identifies the key defining characteristics of a religious cult. As I read through the checklists, I was flabbergasted. Almost almost every single one of these characteristics are readily identifiable in the silverogosphere. Have a look at the following list, and see what you think:

Key Characteristics of a Cult (adapted from the research of Janja Lalich and Michael Langone and of Marcia Rudin)

1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. The leader is not accountable to anyone.

2. Rational thought, questioning and dissent are discouraged or forbidden.

3. Members are encouraged to interact only with other group members. Thus, cult members are isolated from the outside world and any reality testing it might provide.

4. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

5. Cults, particularly in regard to their finances, are shrouded in secrecy.

6. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

7. The cult weakens the follower psychologically by making him or her depend upon the group to solve his or her problems.

8. Members often devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

9. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

10. The group is preoccupied with making money.

11. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

12. Cults are apocalyptic and believe themselves to be the remnant who will survive the soon-approaching end of the world.

13. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

14. There is frequently an aura of or potential for violence around cults.

15. Cults exist only for their own material survival and make false promises to work to improve society.

Now regular readers of Screwtape, and my long-suffering co-contributors, know that I'm no stranger to scrutinising the information put out on other blogs, and that I've been sometimes a rather vocal critic of how readers are - in my opinion - frequently misinformed or downright lied to. But reading the above list came as something of a revelation. We see exactly these features every day on the silverogosphere:

- The silverogocult's 'truth' is the only Truth. Any different interpretations, or contesting of their Truth is immediately damned as heresy. Their Truth is never to be questioned, and their leaders (we all know who they are) are above reproach. They must never be held accountable for their misinformation, no matter how blatant. Hard-core silver bugs react quickly and ruthlessly to defend their leaders. Conversely, their leaders are to be praised at all times: the silver cult is expected to be fawning and enthusiastic in its adoration of certain hosts, otherwise the hard core quickly whip them into line.

- Group members are quickly trampled on, flamed, or banned from sites if they express any contrary opinions, no matter how politely. Negative comments are routinely deleted. Further, other blogs (such as ours, KD's, Bron's, and others), which actually question the 'facts', are never linked to by the silverogocult, and cult members are frequently warned against reading us, accusing us of being bankster shills and disinformation merchants.

- The silverogocult is self-aggrandising: they have 'information' that the 'sheep' do not. They will be 'saved'. They are the only truly wise ones. Their salvation will come through following the words of their leaders, and brooking no heresy.

- New recruits must be constantly brought into the silverogocult. The word must be spread - tell your family, your friends. Convert them if you can. But don't pollute yourself with their heresy if you can't [note: I'm really not exaggerating here - I've seen comments exactly along those lines!]. Don't let anyone lead you off the righteous path.

- The end of the (Keynesian) world is nigh, the silverogocult preaches. Get PMs, stock up on food, get weapons and bullets. Lots of lovely weapons. And fantasise about being a rich land-owner (grâce à l'argent) and defending your domain from the remnants of a shattered society too foolish to prepare in advance by stacking, stacking, stacking... And in the meantime, it's us versus them: crash the banks (by buying silver, of course), fight the Evil Empire.

I could go on, and do this for each of the 15 points, but you get the idea. And you'll have seen many examples of all of this on a multitude of blogs (which will remain nameless, as it's perfectly obvious to which sorts of sites I'm referring).

What's particularly scary to me is the balls-out use of standard religious cult methodology to impart what is effectively just investment advice. Why would anyone go to such lengths? Some of the silverogocult leaders certainly believe their own words, and do it out of a personal conviction, I'm sure. But one could say the same of David Koresh, so that's hardly a ringing endorsement. And others will be doing it to make a buck: they've found a great niche, and a willing audience, and are now capitalising on this. Others are, it seems, simply paid marketeers for big-name PM investors and companies, and are just using known psychological tools to do their day job.

Regardless of their motivations, cults are indubitably a dangerous affair, whether they be religious or investment. And it behoves any reader to always be aware of such techniques and organised group think when reflecting on what they read. Always question what you read; always fear confirmation bias; and always beware of any ideology which raises the views of its adherents to 'privileged' and untouchable status.

Otherwise you're just a sheep waiting to be skinned.

Silver and the bubble curve: where is the Smart Money heading? (Clue: it ain't silver...)

This post will make me about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit, I know. Certainly the PM blogosphere will react with a mix of mockery and vicious hatred. And even my esteemed fellow contributors at Screwtapes will probably run out of eyebrows to raise at what follows.

But I don’t care. There is so much nonsense talked about the PM markets on the web, and so many people are being unwittingly dragged into cult-like devotion to lumps of metal they think will make them millionaires, that I believe it’s becoming ever more important to present every possible side of the case.

So here’s an article about how silver is not the only fruit, and anyone whose sensibilities this offends can b(l)og off and instead read the latest spittle-flecked pant scrapings from SGS (which will no doubt be about Blythe destroying nuclear power plants in Japan at the request of Mossad, or – the new comment section favourite – aliens hoping to steal silver from the COMEX).

Bubble curves and the ‘Smart Money’

Most PM investors are familiar with this kind of

graph, not least because it is touted all over the place as a way of supporting the assertion that silver was not in a mania last year, and will not be in a mania if the price doubles (or triples) this year. Now is the time that the ‘Smart Money’ should enter, so we’re told.

This is not new: in April last year, the Blogosphere buy screams were deafening at $47, cautioning their readers against missing the boat to $250 – 500. The Smart Money should get in immediately they said. They’re beginning to say the same thing again, with silver at $29. Now don’t get me wrong: I doubt I could be more bullish on silver at the moment. I have a nice stash bought at $27 which I’m very much looking forward to selling at between $38 – 42. Claims that Screwtapes contributors are ‘perma bears’ couldn’t be further from the truth.

But the silver chart has nothing of the Smart Money about it. Real silver bears would say that actually we’re between the ‘Return to normal’ and ‘Fear’ stages. I personally don’t agree with this (QE, and its effects on commodity prices, the continuing push for a mania in the tiny community that is silver, and the fact that silver is not currently too far from its trend line suggest otherwise). However, at best – I mean, in the most positive possible interpretation – we are somewhere in the Mania phase.

I’ll repeat: this does not mean that silver won’t now rise (possibly quite dramatically) for the next few months. I think it will, and I hope to profit from it. But Smart Money it ain’t.

So where should Smart Money go now?

Imagine I’m a greedy investor (I am). I don’t want a x2 or (very optimistically) a x3 return from what’s left of the silver mania in 2012. I want a x10 or a x20. Like the clever swine who bought silver at $5 back in 2003. So where is the Smart Money going at the moment? First, let us examine the qualities which potential investments should have in order to be considered Smart Money.

1) The vehicle (stock, bond, commodity, whatever) should have been in a lull (i.e. stagnant) for a considerable period of time. Like gold was between 1998 and 2002 (range: around $270 - 350) or silver between 2000 and 2004 (range: $4 – 6).

2) It will thus have been written off by all pundits. The price gets so low that no-one will sell. But new buyers aren’t drawn in because of the perceived opportunity cost of having their money sat stagnant in a non-performing asset. Like silver in 2003.

3) The vehicle is, however, sound. In other words it is not a company facing bankruptcy or a commodity or good that no-one will ever need again. The business is still profitable (perhaps only just) or the country (referring to bonds, here) is still solvent (also perhaps only just). In the case of silver, it was always going to be valued for jewellery and industrial uses and by ‘eccentric’ retail investors, so there would always be some support to prevent the price dipping (much) further or – in the worst case scenario – to zero.

4) There are clear upside events on the horizon, which – once they take hold – will bring in new buyers, and potentially very quickly. Using gold as an example, we could have said that the Smart Money buying at $280 was anticipating currency devaluation, Middle East crises/oil shocks, whatever. The point is that although the Smart Money did not know the timescale, it knew (or hoped) it would happen. These people are now getting seriously paid (and, in some cases, doing the selling...)

So what assets are there currently floating around that look like they fit these criteria?

Enter stage left, the bank stocks

Boo, hiss, shame!, get out of town, you fully paid-up bankster shill...! We always knew you were a JPM hack...! I bet Blythe sticks [insert large object of choice] into your [insert orifice of choice] and you [insert degree of pleasure of choice] it.

Now that’s out of the way, let’s have an objective look at the situation. I’m going to use the example of Lloyds-TSB (LON:LLOY), simply because it’s a UK company so I’m familiar with it and the back story, and have some experience from trading it for a while. But I’ll make my disclosure right here: I’m long Lloyds-TSB (and RBS and a few other banks) and I hope to initiate new positions in the next few months. However, I receive no payment from, or have any kind of professional relationship with, any bank (which is a shame, because it would mean I could stop wasting my time blogging and finally land that foxy Brazilian lingerie model of which I’ve always dreamt).

Lloyds-TSB, like many banks, lost most of its value post-2008. In fact, it went from 591 BPC (British Pence) in 2007 to a low of 21.84 BPC in November 2011. In short, it has been in a period of decline/stagnation for over three years (criterion 1). Its chart sure looks like the Smart Money part of our bubble curve:

The overwhelming popular sentiment is that Lloyds-TSB (and I again stress, I could've picked many other banks here - the use of Lloyds-TSB is merely illustrative) is going nowhere, and that the shares will not recover. However, no-one's selling their shares because, frankly, if you had a position at 590 BPC, you’re unlikely to sell just because the price has shifted from 22 to 24 BPC in daily fluctuations. If you’ve held through all the trauma to date, you’re about as strong a hand as one can imagine (criterion 2).

Lloyds, however, is not bankrupt. Sure, they’re not the money-sucking machine that they once were, and they’ve had a few years of losses, but it looks like 2012 will be the first year since the crash that they declare a profit. Their customer base (on the high-street banking side) is as strong as it ever was, and their efforts to recapitalise have been successful. Their exposure to foreign debt is not great (and has, in any case, been insulated against by their recapitalisations and UK government protections). So, on criterion 3, it’s looking pretty good too.

[An aside: There are always those who will say that the Western banking model is dead, and that the shares will go to zero. Maybe they’re right. But my response to this is that if the UK’s largest banks go bust, then we’ll be so royally [insert expletive] that the best we can hope for is a life of trading acorns and eating our grandmothers and less-favoured children. Good luck buying tinned bacon with your silver in such circumstances: all that awaits a genuine apocalyptic financial meltdown in the US/Europe is death, destruction and chaos. Your PMs will either stay in your possession for approximately a femtosecond or live out their days buried in whatever forest in Montana or Wales you left them. Regardless, the loss of your investment in banking shares will be the least of your problems.]

Now, back to reality, 2012 is likely to see a dividend paid (again, for the first time since 2008) by Lloyds-TSB. And, as mentioned above, its first profit announcement since 2008. Even more important is the fact that the UK government has a 43% stake in the company, at an average of 74 BPC per share acquired during the part-nationalisation. This actually came about not directly because of the 2008 crash, but rather because Lloyds was heavily arm-twisted into bailing out the doomed HBOS during the crash. In any case, the UK government wants its money back. Further, it has to get its money back, as the UK faces decades of austerity if its investments in Lloyds-TSB and RBS don’t pay out. This part should appeal to those who implicate TPTB in every financial machination: the British government has a massive interest in doing whatever it takes to get the share price of Lloyds-TSB at least back up to 74 BPC. Otherwise, ‘good-bye’ ministerial cars and Yes, Prime Minister, and ‘hello’ back bench obscurity. What would you bet on? I rest the case for criterion 4.

Are we at the end of the Smart Money phase for bank stocks?

The night is always darkest before the dawn breaks, goes the old cliché. Continuing with the example of Lloyds-TSB, last year was very dark indeed. The Euro crisis hit it hard, as did the threat of extra regulation and the temporary loss of its chief executive, António Horta-Osório. All of this pushed its share price down to what feels like a bottom of 21.84 BPC. Tellingly, trading in this particular bank stock has since been exceptionally volume-heavy: investors are piling in. It’s risen nearly 50% since then (from 21.83 to 29.97; cf. silver’s move of $32 – $26 – $29 during the same period), and shows no sign of abatement even in the face of potentially very bad news. On Friday, when the news of France’s downgrade was announced, it dipped in line with the rest of the FTSE, and then surged on new buying to finish nearly 3% up on the day.

Why should this be? My theory – and I accept that it is only a theory – is that we are nearing the end of a Smart Money phase in some bank stocks. Those banks that remain profitable and relatively insulated against further risks, and for which most risk has already been priced in, seem to have very little further downside and a hell of a lot of upside. For silver to make a x10 return, it needs to go to $300 an ounce. For Lloyds-TSB to do the same, it needs to go to 220 BPC a share.

It all comes down to which you think is more likely in the next three – five years: $300 silver to achieve six times its best ever price, or Lloyds to claw its way back to one-third of its pre-2008 price. I know there are many who read this site who would say, “that’s easy – silver every time”. Fine. I have silver too, and will be happy with that. But a good investor is a hedged investor, and is also a realistic one. And, for now, I expect TPTB to look after their own interests and restore value to their directors’ shares far more quickly than they will enable silver investors to reap massive rewards.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Long LON:LLOY and LON:RBS and physical silver and physical gold. New positions in each of these are likely to be taken throughout 2012.

Are the ravens leaving the Tower?

Ah, the good old BBC. For us limeys (I use this word only because Screwtapes' audience seems to come mostly from across the Pond), there's nothing quite like it. It's the oldest broadcaster in the world, and its name is synonymous with sobriety, calm reflection and (supposedly) unbiased reporting. It's hard to explain its place in the British psyche to non Brits. It is the news equivalent of a comfy pair of pyjamas: not very sexy, admittedly, but calm, comforting and trusted.

An old English legend goes along the lines that if the monarchy is about to collapse, then the ravens will leave the Tower of London (rather unsportingly, the current unkindness of ravens* at the Tower have their wings clipped to prevent such an event). Similarly, during the Cold War, BBC Radio 4 - the most hard-hitting, trusted, and influential source of news for Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - formed part of the Royal Navy's letters of last resort: in other words, if the station ever went off air, it was to be assumed that London had fallen to a massive Soviet nuclear strike and our submarines were to immediately launch a retaliatory attack.

So, given all of the above, imagine my surprise in reading this report from the economics editor of Newsnight (roughly the equivalent of the US '60 minutes'): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14579710

Please read this article in full. It is the best summary of where we are currently that I have seen in the traditional media since 2008. It is, of course, UK-centric, but all of the arguments apply equally to the US and the rest of Europe.

Paul Mason is one of the three most respected economic reporters in the UK, along with Robert Peston (also of the BBC; he scooped the collapse of Northern Rock and predicted most of the events that have taken place since 2008) and Gillian Tett of the FT, who predicted the collapse of the sub-prime derivatives market and credit default swaps long before 2008. A gold-bug/anti-Keynesian/conspiracy-theory-loving Glenn Beck type he certainly ain't. A prophet of doom he ain't, either - or at least he wasn't until yesterday.

No, the fact that a previously 'main stream' (albeit highly respected) senior economics reporter for a flagship British current affairs programme could have produced something that would not look out of place in some of the more paranoid parts of the PM blogosphere should really tell us something. It's worth noting that the FT (perhaps the most staid of all UK broadsheets) is following suit, and appears now to be quite happily printing articles about $5000 gold.

The anti-Keynesian backlash is becoming mainstream. Gold's break from its well-trodden bullish channel (2008 - 2011) into a new, steeper channel has been to the traditional media what a red-hot poker was to Edward II's backside. Now even the most conservative analysts seem to be sitting up and taking note.

Some of you will be interested in all this simply because your investments in Au and Ag are likely to do very, very well over the next few years. I'm interested in it because it feels like a paradigm shift is taking place, and one in which the so-far relatively comfortable lives of millions will be utterly overturned. It seems to be only a matter of time before another big bank fails (SocGen, RBS, take your pick) and this time no-one will be able to afford a bailout. Be afraid.

JdA

* yes - that really is the collective noun for ravens.