Currency
Second quarter GDP figures in Japan came in well below expectations. The Japanese economy grew 2.6% in Q2 at an annualized rate, below economists’ consensus prediction for 3.6% growth. Business spending fell 0.1% year over year in the second quarter, versus forecasts for a 0.6% rise.
Japan industrial production contracted 3.1% from the previous month in June and fell 4.6% year over year, versus a 3.3% and 4.8% contraction, respectively, in May. Capacity utilization fell 2.3% in June after rising 2.3% the month before.
The Yen hit $96.04 against $96.33 prior to the data print, MarketWatch’s Michael Kitchen says.
The Nikkei is also off -1.26%.
Seasonally-adjusted GDP climbed +0.6% against Q1’s +0.9%.
As we recently explained, Japanese economic data has been doing a lot of missing expectations lately. Industrial production, household spending and July PMI all fell short.
Plus, July employment fell for the first time in three months.
Abe-nomics — the loose monetary policy ordered by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to reinflate Japan’s economy — have now been in place about half a year.
There was a nice move in both gold and silver overnight and the rally continued as the metals opened for the week in New York.
One trader explains the bullish move was brought on by backwardation in the futures market (when the spot market trades higher than the nearest futures price). This can be explained by a demand for physical gold or immediate delivery, and thus, as well explains higher wait times for manufactured product.
Click here to view a clip from Bloomberg TV.
The Half Full Economy
The marginal economic strength that was described in the most recent GDP release from Washington has caused many to double down on their belief that the Federal Reserve will begin tapering Quantitative Easing sometime later this year. While I believe that is a fantasy given our economy’s extreme dependence on QE, market observers should have learned long ago that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) initial GDP estimates can’t be trusted. A perusal of their subsequent GDP revisions in the last five years reveals a clear trend: They are almost twice as likely to revise initial estimates down rather than up, and the downward adjustments have been much larger on average.
As a result of this phenomenon, an overall optimism has pervaded the economic discussion that has consistently been unfulfilled by actual performance. The government is continuously over promising and under delivering. Unfortunately, no one seems to care.
Measuring the size of the economy accurately in anything close to real time is difficult, inexact, and messy. That is why the BEA has long pursued a policy of initial quarterly estimates (known as the “advanced estimate”), followed by two or three subsequent revisions as more thorough analysis comes to bear. The first estimates come out about a month after the conclusion of a particular quarter. The second and third revisions then come in monthly intervals thereafter. But in the minds of the media, the public and the politicians, the initial report carries much more weight than the revisions. It is the initial report that attracts the screaming headlines and sets the tone. The revisions are typically buried and ignored. This creates an unfortunate situation where the initial estimates are both the most important and the least reliable.
However, logic would dictate that revisions would fall equally in the up and down categories. After all, government bean counters are expected to report objectively, not to create a narrative or manage expectations. If anything, I believe that the public would be better served if they would adhere to the conservative playbook of under promising. That is exactly what they seemed to be doing before the economic crash of 2008. From 2002 to mid-summer 2008, the BEA revised initial GDP estimates a total of 25 times, 80% of which (20 revisions) were higher than their initial estimate. However, the average amplitude of the upward and downward revisions were equal at .5%. The difference may have been a function of the relatively strong economy that the nation saw over that time (which I believe was a result of the unsustainable and artificial housing boom). See the chart below.

But since mid-2008 we have seen a very different story. 67% of the revisions (12 of 18) have been downward, and those adjustments have been, on average, 50% larger than the upward revisions (.75% vs. .5%). Here’s another way of looking at it: Since mid-2008, revisions have shaved a total of 6 points of growth off the initial estimates. This works out to be an average of 1.3 points of growth per year that some may have expected but that never actually happened.
The pattern of early optimism may stem from the lack of understanding in Washington about how monetary stimulus actually retards economic growth. Many of the statisticians may be former academics who take it as gospel that government spending and money printing create growth. As a result, they expect the initial boost created by stimulus to be sustainable. The evidence suggests that it is not.
But there can be little doubt that these overly optimistic projections have worked wonders on the public relations front. The big Wall Street firms and the talking heads on financial TV set the tone by jumping on the new releases and ignoring the revisions to prior releases. That is precisely what happened last week when the better than expected 1.7% growth in 2nd quarter GDP overshadowed the .7% downward revision to 1st quarter GDP from 1.8% to 1.1%. The initial estimate for 1st quarter GDP, released back in April, was 2.5%. Since the consensus expectation for 2nd quarter GDP was just 1%, the media jumped all over the “good” news, while ignoring the revisions to the prior quarter, and discounting the strong likelihood that Q2 GDP will be revised downward. The nature of our short-term 24-hour news cycle is a big factor in this. Reporters are always looking for the big story of the day, not the minutia of last month. The lack of critical thinking and economic understanding also play a role.
Of course even if you have the discipline to focus on the final estimates, you still aren’t getting the real story. All GDP estimates are based on imperfect inflation measurement tools, which I believe are designed to under report inflation and over report growth. The most recent GDP projection used an annualized .71% inflation deflator to arrive at 1.7% growth. Anyone who believes that inflation is currently running below 1% has simply no grasp of our current economy. Look for more analysis of this topic in my upcoming columns. In the meantime, don’t get excited by initial reports of a healthy recovery. The reality is likely to be more sobering.
Peter Schiff is the CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, best-selling author and host of syndicated Peter Schiff Show.
Subscribe to Euro Pacific’s Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by Peter Schiff, John Browne, and other Euro Pacific commentators delivered to your inbox every Monday!
Don’t forget to sign up for our Global Investor Newsletter.
As the markets are propelled higher by the successive interventions of the Federal Reserve it is hard not to think that the current rise will continue indefinitely. The most common belief is currently that even if the Fed begins to “taper” their purchases the resurgence of economic growth will continue to propel stocks higher even in the face of higher interest rates. The financial world has finally achieved a “utopian” state where there is no longer investment risk in any asset class -because if it stumbles the central banks of the world will be there to catch them.
However, a quick look at history tells us that this time is not really different. In March of 2008 I was giving a seminar discussing why we had already likely entered into a recession and that a market swoon of mass proportions was approaching. While the advice fell on deaf ears as we were in a “Goldilocks” economy, and “subprime” was contained, the bubble ended just a few short months later as it was no “different” then versus any other time in history, or, even now.
The slide below was from the presentation:

About Lance Roberts
Lance Roberts, the host of “StreetTalkLive”, has a unique ability to bring the complex world of economics, investing and personal financial wealth building to you in simple, easy and informative ways but also makes it entertaining to listen to at the same time. Lance brings fundamental, technical and economic perspectives, combined with a unique focus, to the day’s news helping listeners understand how it impacts their money.
After having been in the investing world for more than 25 years from private banking and investment management to private and venture capital; Lance has pretty much “been there and done that” at one point or another. His common sense approach has appealed to audiences for over a decade and continues to grow each and every week.
Making money is not hard. Learning how to keep it has been the trick. Lance’s teachings are fairly basic. Conservation of principal, a disciplined approach and living on less than you make and carrying little or no debt is the only way to build wealth. His advice is more of the “chicken soup” variety as there is no magic “black box” to build wealth – just time, hard work and sacrifice.
Lance is also the Chief Editor of the X-Report, a weekly subscriber based-newsletter that is distributed nationwide. The newsletter covers economic, political and market topics as they relate to the management portfolios. A daily financial blog, audio and video’s also keep members informed of the day’s events and how it impacts your money.
Lance’s investment strategies and knowledge have been featured on Fox 26, CNBC, Fox Business News and Fox News. He has been quoted by a litany of publications from the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Washington Post all the way to TheStreet.com as well as on several of the nation’s biggest financial blogs such as the Pragmatic Capitalist, Zero Hedge and Seeking Alpha.
After all it is “All About You And Your Money”





As to the second question, my models do indeed still show the potential for gold and silver to slide going into September and test the prior major lows or even spike lower to new lows.

