Stories

My Investment Career

Nigel Hannaford
April 29, 2016
Nigel Hannaford has been expecting the worst for most of his adult life. That’s what comes of compulsively buying and reading books predicting economic catastrophe that began cascading out of publishing houses in the 1970s. Some of them were right, more or less, about the inflationary impacts of profligate government fiscal and monetary policy. Looking back, Hannaford writes, he should have listened to the gold bugs.
Stories

My Investment Career

Nigel Hannaford
April 29, 2016
Nigel Hannaford has been expecting the worst for most of his adult life. That’s what comes of compulsively buying and reading books predicting economic catastrophe that began cascading out of publishing houses in the 1970s. Some of them were right, more or less, about the inflationary impacts of profligate government fiscal and monetary policy. Looking back, Hannaford writes, he should have listened to the gold bugs.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

There comes a birthday when you realize a book a week is not enough. Even if you could, and not counting future Christmas presents, by the time you’d read everything on your shelves, you’d be 112.

So, it’s time to purge. Which is why I’m holding a copy of Harry Browne’s 1970 classic, How You can Profit from the Coming Devaluation.

Why would I keep this? Well, why not? A lot of his ideas turned out to be ‘right on’, as we used to say back then.

Soldier, writer, investment analyst and two-time presidential nominee for America’s Libertarian Party, Harry Browne predicted that U.S. monetary policy would lead to a devalued dollar and soaring inflation.

Browne was not alone in his fervent pessimism. Over the years there were dozens of other economic doomsayers, notably Howard Ruff with his books and newsletters, Ravi Batra’s The Great Depression of 1990, Douglas Casey and his 1980 Crisis Investing: Opportunities and Profits in the Coming Great Depression, and Turk and Robino’s 21st century guide to financial survival, The Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit from It.

But, Browne was first (not counting Cassandra and Chicken Little). At least, first to really command attention. He sold more than two million books. In fact, he’s the prototype for the thoughtful, principled end of an entire genre. (There’s also an unthoughtful, if not unprincipled end; it includes conspiracy theorists, freemen-on-the-land and folks who keep AK-47s under their beds.)

Did any of it make any sense? If you’d accepted their premises and acted on their advice, how would you have done?

Frankly, a Browne-style portfolio of gold, silver, bonds, stocks and cash would have been an improvement on my personal investment strategy, if you can call it that.

I did try to follow his advice. As a young married man with children, it was hard to hang on to cash, but in the ’70s I managed to buy a little gold. And, as the kids got older, I had them sifting change for old dimes made of real silver: Browne recommended a private hoard for when “the coming devaluation” made paper money worthless. I also bought stocks.

So, I had the right idea. My problem was poor execution. I sold the gold and kept the silver. The gold promptly doubled, and has since doubled again. As for the silver, it was $15 when I bought it. Thanks to the Hunt brothers, who drove it to fifty bucks in 1980 by cornering much of the global supply, I briefly savoured a score. Then the Feds cornered the Hunts. Today, my devalued, inflation-ravaged silver hoard is still worth $15.

And the stocks? Mesmerized by Smilin’ Jack Gallagher, I bought Dome, and took a very cold bath in Arctic petroleum speculation.

What if I had gone with Howard Ruff?

There his 1979 book sits, next to Browne: How to Prosper During the Coming Bad Years. A gold bug for the entire forty years he offered investment advice, he’s 86 now and retired. His legacy to me? The gold is gone, but I still have some of the year’s food supply I laid up on his advice. My wife wants to dump it with the books. But I’m hesitant; some day we could need those lentils.

And of course, there was the late, great Larry Burkett. In his 1991 magnum opus, The Coming Economic Earthquake, Burkett argued that debt was out of control. He warned that unless Washington changed its policies – ongoing deficits, its expansion into the economy through regulation and its tacit approval of increased private sector consumption and reduced saving –  the new millennium would see first, a banking crisis, and then widespread business failures. He assailed J.M. Keynes for giving intellectual cover to borrow-and-spend politicians.

Burkett died in 2003 and therefore did not live to see a banking crisis finally precipitate the global “Great Recession” that so many had predicted for so long. But for that, he had better timing that most. It was no mean feat to accurately predict in 1991 that the house of cards would collapse 17 years later.

And so they went on. Sometimes these people looked brilliant. Sometimes, things just didn’t break their way: Ten years ago, Stephen Leeb – The Coming Economic Collapse – was worried about $200 oil. How quaint.

What all these people had in common was Browne’s original prediction that the policies of the U.S. government would cause massive inflation and dollar devaluation.

Admittedly there was no overnight catastrophe, when citizens wake up to find the banks closed and their savings gone. But over the four and a half decades since 1970, when then-U.S. President Richard Nixon quietly detached the dollar from gold, that’s exactly what has happened. In recent years, we have all paid for a gallon of gasoline what in 1970 would have bought two barrels of oil. The house your father bought for $25,000 in 1970, now sells for $350,000. Nixon himself once said that “what this country needs is a good five cent hamburger”. But thanks to him, when you place your order today, you’d better have $5. Where most of us live, that’s what inflation and devaluation looks like. And my prediction? There will be more of it. The hopelessly indebted U.S. government has three choices: Cut expenditures, raise taxes or rob its lenders. The least-votes-lost for any party is devaluation.

Which brings us back to gold. There may be better ways to protect oneself than holding gold. Larry Burkett urged his readers – pleaded with them – to get out of debt. That is certainly golden advice.

However, over the long haul, Harry Browne was right that gold would at least hold value.

Consider: Back in 1970, it was $35 an ounce. Enough for an ok suit.

In 1990, it was $383. By then, you needed that for a pretty good suit.

Twenty years on, in 2010, gold was $1224. That got you into Harry Rosen’s. Today, gold is $1,250 an ounce, and a mid-range Tilford suit from Harry is $1,200.

Needless to say, I don’t own one of those. But silver I’ve got. And when the full scale economic collapse finally comes (The Real Crash 2016, Peter Schiff), I’ll be the guy paying for gas with U.S. nickels dated 1907.

As for the books, I’m saving them for the grandkids.

~

Nigel Hannaford is a battle-scarred investor and a big fan of Stephen Leacock.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Hands-On Future: Skilled Trades, Data Centres and Canada’s Big AI Opportunity

Whether Canadians fear or favour artificial intelligence, they can’t stop it. AI’s transformative power in making so many things faster and easier will doubtless cause pain, says veteran Canadian business leader Gwyn Morgan, but it will also provide generational opportunities Canada must seize. The Prairie region, especially, has the abundant land and energy needed to build the massive AI data centres that will power the future. Some workers are at risk, Morgan concedes, but AI will create opportunities as well, particularly in the skilled trades. AI might just transform our labour force into one where more workers do real things for real people.

The Day After: How Ottawa’s Clarity Act Could Destroy the Federation It Was Meant to Protect

With Alberta headed for a vote on having a vote on independence, many Canadians may think the threat of separation has evaporated. Or that it’s a long way off. Or that, in any case, Ottawa’s Clarity Act will shut it down and protect the federation. But in the concluding instalment of their series (read Part I here and Part II here), George Koch and Jim Mason explode that delusion. The Act is more likely to increase the “Yes” vote which, they predict, will trigger more political wrangling, more bad faith and bitterness, possible civil unrest and even the province’s annexation by the U.S. The consequences, in other words, are dire no matter which side you’re on.

Too Clever by Half: Why Ottawa’s Clarity Act Helps Neither Side in Alberta’s Separation Debate

The House of Commons once had an effective law in front of it that laid out clear steps to assure that any provincial referendum on independence would be democratic and any negotiations after a “Yes” vote would be fair. But it wasn’t the current Clarity Act – it was a bill put forward by the Opposition Reform Party in 1996, and the Liberal government chose to ignore it. Instead, it passed its own legislation designed to crush support for any subsequent secession movement. In Part II of their series on what the Clarity Act means to today’s debate over Alberta’s future, George Koch and Jim Mason delve into the Act’s origin story and explain why it’s so blatantly stacked in favour of Ottawa – and how that could inflame separatist sentiment and undermine the federalist cause.

More from this author

Strange Bedfellows in the Oil Patch

The idea of transitioning from a fossil-fuel economy to one based on “renewables” has gone mainstream. Yet oil and natural gas remain crucial and there’s growing anxiety about how the obstacles to energy and other natural resource development threaten Canada’s long-term economic prospects. The country must come together, Nigel Hannaford argues, if it’s to avoid a self-inflicted catastrophe.

No country for oil men

The escalating war of words and trade actions between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline project are a distraction from the real issue, which is whether Canada has a future as a competitive oil producing and exporting country. We’ll find that out when the Trudeau government in Ottawa decides whether to enforce the rule of law, first against the rogue NDP-Green regime in B.C., and then against the inevitable army of protestors who will blockade the pipeline if it goes ahead. Nigel Hannaford reports, skeptically.

We have seen the liars, and they are us

Donald Trump didn’t invent the post-truth phenomenon, he’s just a symptom of it. The current epidemic of truthlessness was conceived in post-modernism, gestated in our legal and academic institutions, and hatched in our own brains. Former Stephen Harper speechwriter Nigel Hannaford recently examined these hard truths in a presentation to students at Royal Roads University.