Share this page with your friends:

How these 12 TPP Nations Could Forever Change Global Growth
October 12, 2015

Historic. Landmark. Groundbreaking. Revolutionary.

These are among many of the words that have been used lately to describe the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, which was finally signed in Atlanta last Monday by 12 participating Pacific Rim nations.

The current members include Canada, the United States, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.

runners on the starting line

After nearly seven years of negotiations, the TPP promises to deliver unprecedented free and fair global trade among the 12 participant nations.

Once ratified by each country’s congress or parliament—which is likely to happen in early 2016—the accord will become the most significant, most economically-impactful trade deal in history. As many as 18,000 tariffs are expected to be eliminated. It will remove barriers to foreign investment, streamline customs procedures and create an international investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, among much more.

Global Purchasing Managers' Index Continues to Deteriorate
click to enlarge

The Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, predicts that the resultant savings could boost the world economy by an incredible $223 billion by 2025.

Today, the 12 members control more than a quarter of all global trade, representing close to $10 trillion. But it’s estimated that once the TPP goes live, the trade percentage could climb to as high as 50 percent, according to CLSA.

The trade pact couldn’t have come at a better time. Global growth is slowing, and mounting tariffs threaten to suffocate trade. Even though the TPP’s full implementation is months and, in some cases, years away, it’s encouraging to know that positive change is on its way.

Having said that, no one knows the full details yet and it might be a while before we can see the official documents. When that time comes, we’ll analyze the deal to see which countries, industries and sectors stand to benefit the most. And of course the pact has already become the subject of criticism, targeted specifically at how it handles pharmaceuticals and intellectual property.

All in all, however, the world has needed such an agreement for years now to bring unilateral trade liberalization into the 21st century.

China Misses First-Mover Advantage but Isn’t out of the Race

The most notable player missing-in-action is China, and to a lesser extent Korea, both of which have taken a “wait and see” attitude. That will likely change in the coming years. China sat this round out because the trade deal would have imposed several stringent economic, labor and environmental conditions on the Asian giant, as it does on all TPP nations.

a penny-farthing economy o a precarious ride: governments must learn to balance monetary and fiscal policies to remain competitive globally

But China and Korea will doubtlessly have little choice but to join the team once they see the enormous benefits enjoyed by participating countries. China’s southern neighbor Vietnam, for instance, is expected to see a huge 10 percent boost in its GDP by 2025—twice as much as any other Asian market—according to Credit Suisse. Malaysia, a 5 percent boost.

The business relationship between the U.S. and China—the world’s two largest economies—grows stronger every day, and China doesn’t want to see its competitive edge dulled by other Asian countries that chose to be members of the TPP.

Here in Texas, where a lot of public signage is written in both English and Spanish, I’m starting to see more and more Mandarin, an indicator that U.S.-China relations are strengthening. The picture of the ad, which I took at the San Marcos Premium Outlets mall just north of San Antonio, is clearly targeted to Chinese tourists. It’s an ad for China Merchants Bank and reads: “In America, use Merchants Bank credit card! Very American!”


Vietnam Will See the Biggest Long-Term Economic Benefits

“Very American,” indeed. To be clear, the real winner in the formation of the TPP is the U.S., for whom the deal is as much about geopolitics as it is about trade. In a briefing this week, the National Bank of Canada writes that the TPP “would allow the United States to take the lead in setting the rules of commerce for about 40 percent of the global economy.”

But as I said, Vietnam is poised to see the biggest upside potential as a result of the deal. The Southeast Asian country is a large manufacturer and exporter of textiles, apparel and footwear, all of which the U.S. currently imposes a very high 17 percent duty on. That’s set to disappear, saving the country billions. Because foreign investment in Vietnam is expected to accelerate under the deal, banks, consumer goods and construction are also set to benefit.

Global Purchasing Managers' Index Continues to Deteriorate
click to enlarge

Malaysia is another country that stands to see sweeping changes. Right now the country doesn’t have a trade agreement with the U.S., Canada, Mexico or Peru. Once the deal is ratified and implemented, Malaysia’s vital palm oil, rubber, plywood, electronics, textile and automotive parts industries will be open for business to some of the world’s largest economies.

As for Japan, its all-important, $538 billion auto industry will receive a huge shot in the arm. Consultancy firm Eurasia Group estimates that the TPP could help add $105 billion to Japan’s GDP by 2025.

Say It with Me: Government Policy Is a Precursor to Change

Not only is the Trans-Pacific Partnership great for global trade but it also promises to help bring fiscal and monetary policies into balance. The deal is a welcome and much-needed development from a fiscal perspective, one that we haven’t seen from world governments in more than a generation. Lately, everything’s been about monetary policy—specifically quantitative easing and currency manipulation—to stimulate growth.  A reduction in taxes, tariffs and regulation also promotes growth.

Top 10 Most Competitive Countries, According to the World Economic Forum
click to enlarge

Here at U.S. Global Investors, we often say it’s the policy, not the party, that really matters. Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike are all capable of effecting change that can both move the U.S. forward as well as set it back.

On President Barack Obama’s watch, many new restrictive rules and regulations have been enacted in the U.S. that clog up the flow of capital like cholesterol and hinder business growth and innovation. I’ve written and spoken about these policies on many occasions.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that he’s been one of the most fervent champions for the creation of the TPP, even going so far as to stand up against several prominent members of his own party. I’m certain that in the decades to come, the TPP will emerge as the Obama administration’s crowning foreign policy achievement.

What the Influencers Are Saying

I’d like to end by sharing some compelling comments on the TPP by key policymakers, business leaders and economists. Their optimism should convince anyone that the TPP, once ratified, could end up being the best thing to happen to global trade in at least a generation.

To my Canadian friends and readers, I wish you a happy and blessed Canadian Thanksgiving!

Malaysia currently puts a 30 percent tax on American auto parts. Vietnam puts a tax of as much as 70 percent on every car American automakers sell in Vietnam. Under this agreement, all those foreign taxes will fall. Most of them will fall to zero. So we are knocking down barriers that are currently preventing American businesses from selling in these countries and are preventing American workers from benefiting from those sales to the fastest-growing, most dynamic region in the world.

U.S. President Barack Obama

This agreement in my view is truly transformational. To have one set of rules for 12 destinations is going to turbo charge regional supply chains and global supply chains and reduce costs.

Australia Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb

Free-trade agreements create new opportunities for American companies and their workers. I thank the United States Trade Representative and fellow trade negotiators for their commitment to finalizing this agreement. U.S. companies need to be able to compete and win in global markets to support well-paying jobs at home. It’s critical we provide our manufacturers and exporters with the best tools to compete on a level-playing field in markets worldwide.

Boeing President and CEO Dennis Muilenburg

In many parts of the world, food and agricultural products still face the legacy of high import barriers. We believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership will allow food to move more freely across borders from places of plenty to places of need, which benefits farmers and consumers around the world.

Cargill Chairman and CEO David MacLennan


Canada’s mining industry has been a strong advocate for liberalized trade and investment flows for many years. NAFTA, free trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Colombia and other countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia have all helped to increase Canadian exports and investment, supporting jobs for Canadians here and abroad. TPP, representing such a massive trade block, including critical emerging markets, is a trading partnership Canada must not risk being left out of.

Mining Association of Canada President and CEO Pierre Gratton

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor.

Fund portfolios are actively managed, and holdings may change daily. Holdings are reported as of the most recent quarter-end. The following securities mentioned in the article were held by one or more of U.S. Global Investors Funds as of 9/30/2015: The Boeing Co.

Share “How these 12 TPP Nations Could Forever Change Global Growth”

The 10 Most Competitive Countries in the World
October 5, 2015

runners on the starting line

Since 1979, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has annually published its Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), which, as you can probably guess, ranks the competitiveness of nations for which the group is able to gather sufficient data. This year, the WEF ranks 140 economies—from Switzerland to Guinea.

This is a report I anticipate every year because it’s an indispensable tool that helps policymakers and business leaders better understand what works and what doesn’t in creating stronger, more transparent, more efficacious societies that foster success and prosperity.

For the very curious, the more-than-400-page report is available for download on the WEF’s website.

Global Growth Starts at Home

The WEF defines competitiveness as “the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of an economy, which in turn sets the level of prosperity that the country can earn.”

I agree with this definition. I often point out that government policy is a precursor to change, that such policy changes, such as the one India recently instituted regarding gold-investing, have powerful—and sometimes negative—consequences, many of them global. Here in the U.S., consider the recent implementation and impact of Dodd-Frank, or Obamacare, or FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).

A recent Sovereign Man post makes this point very emphatically:

U.S. regulations have made its entire population guilty of crimes they’ve never heard of, often for the most innocent and innocuous activities.

Operating lemonade stands without a permit, collecting rainwater, failing to file a government survey are just a few activities now treated as criminal conspiracies.

And yet the government continues to publish upwards of a 1,000 pages PER DAY of new rules, regulations, and other proposals.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump, an advocate for fewer regulations, agrees. In a 2012 Washington Times op-ed, he wrote that “government regulations cost us annually $1.75 trillion. They constitute a stealth tax that is larger than the amount the Internal Revenue Service collects every year from corporations and individuals combined.”

The Economy Shrinks when Government Grows Too large

Consider this. In the U.S., we cap debt. We cap pollution. Imagine if we did the same for rules and regulations.

Please don’t get me wrong. Every sport requires a rulebook and referee of some kind, but the game becomes increasingly difficult to play and compete in when the rules keep changing and getting more restrictive. At some point, government spending related to such rules and regulations becomes too cumbersome. The cost exceeds the benefit, in other words, as you can see in the chart known as the “Rahn curve,” named for American economist Richard W. Rahn. 

I also frequently comment that governments and economic partnerships, such as the European Union, must maintain a healthy balance between monetary and fiscal policy to remain competitive on the world stage. When economies rely only on monetary policy but fail to address fiscal issues such as punitive taxation and over-bloated entitlement spending, imbalances occur. These imbalances inevitably slow the engines of business and innovation, like cholesterol in one’s arteries.

a penny-farthing economy o a precarious ride: governments must learn to balance monetary and fiscal policies to remain competitive globally

As for gold, many CNBC reporters like to comment on the metal’s recent underperformance, when in fact gold was down substantially less than the S&P 500 Index this past quarter. Government policy is imbalanced with restrictive, choking global regulations for trade and focused instead on tax collection. We need to reform taxes and streamline regulations to stimulate economic activity.

Speaking of which: Every year, the GCI lists what policymakers and business leaders identify as the most “problematic factors” for doing business in individual countries. It should come as no surprise that the top five factors on average include, in ranking order:

1) government bureaucracy
2) tax rates
3) restrictive labor regulations
4) access to finance
5) complexity of tax regulations

Regarding access to finance, the GCI notes that it has worsened in recent years. This worsening is certainly the result of the global financial crisis seven years ago, but financial regulation has gone too far, paralyzing the flow of credit.

As proof of this, the group writes: “Access to finance is now almost as problematic in advanced as in developing economies.”

The WEF’s insight, research and guidance are as needed now as they’ve ever been. We continue to see deterioration in the global purchasing managers’ index, mostly as a result of the “problematic factors” listed above.

Global Purchasing Managers' Index Continues to Deteriorate
click to enlarge

As large and important as China’s economy is, we can’t place the blame solely at the feet of its slowing economy for the world’s problems. If we truly wish to see an upturn in business and manufacturing activity, individual governments need to address the ever-amassing regulations, tax complexity and bureaucracy that act like sandpaper to the progress of business, innovations and prosperity.

Biggest Gainers and Losers

Before I share with you the top 10 most competitive nations—which haven’t really changed from the previous year—I want to highlight a few countries that made either some significant gains or losses.

runners on the starting line

The country that leaped the most was India, rising 16 spots from number 71 last year to 55. I don’t think many people will find this surprising. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s election last year ushered in a new era of business development, foreign investment and anti-corruption. The “Make in India” initiative, launched by Modi in September 2014, has helped the country surpass China as the world’s top destination for foreign direct investment.

As I shared with you in March, India was the best-performing emerging market in 2014, rising more than 29 percent. Many analysts, furthermore, estimate that the country will emerge sometime this century as the world’s third-largest economy, following China and the U.S.

The GCI points out, however, that India continues to face significant challenges. Infrastructure deterioration, a huge lack of access to electricity and slow technological readiness are concerns Modi’s administration must take urgent action on.

Other notable climbers were the Czech Republic (gaining six points), Kazakhstan (eight points), Russia (eight points) and Vietnam (12 points). I shared with you last month that the Czech Republic has the highest PMI reading among emerging European countries and the fastest-growing economy in all of Europe, so its ascent was very much expected.

You might be taken aback, however, to see Russia rise so much, especially after the plunge in oil prices—so important to the country’s budget—the weakening of its currency and the imposition of additional sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine. The WEF no doubt anticipated readers’ disbelief as well, because it writes: “[T]his is explained mostly by a major revision of purchasing power parity estimates by the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which led to a 40 percent increase in Russia’s GDP when valued at PPP.”

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff

The country that plummeted the most was one of India and Russia’s fellow BRIC countries, Brazil. Falling 18 spots, the South American nation now sits at number 75 out of 140, compared to last year’s 57.

As with India, no one should be shocked by this. The Marxist policies of President Dilma Rousseff, in office since 2011, have only managed to suffocate business development. Brazil ranks as one of the very worst countries in terms of burdensome government regulations, unethical business practices, effect of taxation on incentives to invest and hiring and firing procedures.  

Besides a loss of trust in public and private institutions because of rampant corruption, the GCI cites Brazil’s “large fiscal deficit,” “rising inflationary pressure” and “weak macroeconomic performance.”

Another BRIC country, China, holds steady at 28. You might recall that back in August, I reacted to the news of China’s stock market correction and economic slowdown, writing that “the world’s second-largest economy has begun to shift away from manufacturing and more toward consumption and the service industries.”

My views here are quite validated by the GCI’s assessment of the Asian country’s current economic condition, stating that China must “evolve to a model” that emphasizes “demand through domestic consumption.”  

Crème de la Crème

In the map below, you can see the current top 10 most competitive countries, according to The Global Competitiveness Report.

Top 10 Most Competitive Countries, According to the World Economic Forum
click to enlarge

As I mentioned earlier, not much has changed since last year. No new countries have entered or exited this exalted list, and there was very little rank-shuffling. For the seventh consecutive year, Switzerland is the most competitive country. For the fifth straight year, Singapore is number two. The U.S. comes in at number three for the second year. And so on.

For this reason, I won’t spend much time rehashing what I already said in my coverage of last year’s report. It’s likely you can already identify many of the probable reasons why these nations appear so highly on the index: access to good infrastructure and electricity, quality education and research institutions, availability of the latest technology, strong intellectual property rights and protectionism and much more.

Each one of these 10 countries has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, for sure, but the common theme among them can be traced back to the WEF’s definition of competitiveness. The most successful countries foster “institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of an economy, which in turn sets the level of prosperity that the country can earn.”

Recall my comparison of Singapore and Cuba in a March Frank Talk. Both small island-states were established in their present forms in 1959—but with two starkly different economic visions. Whereas one government chose to stress sound fiscal policies and an open business environment, the other all but abolished private enterprise.

As a result, Singapore is today the second-most competitive nation on earth, according to the World Economic Forum. Meanwhile, Cuba doesn’t even rank among the 140 countries the group studied.

To get global growth back on track, it’s imperative that countries follow the leads of Switzerland, Singapore, the U.S. and others that made it to the top of the WEF’s list.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. By clicking the link(s) above, you will be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s) and is not responsible for its/their content.

The Global Competitiveness Index, developed for the World Economic Forum, is used to assess competitiveness of nations. The Index is made up of over 113 variables, organized into 12 pillars, with each pillar representing an area considered as an important determinant of competitiveness: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication and innovation.

The S&P 500 Stock Index is a widely recognized capitalization-weighted index of 500 common stock prices in U.S. companies.

The Rahn curve is an economic theory, proposed in 1996 by American economist Richard W. Rahn, which indicates that there is a level of government spending that maximizes economic growth. The theory is used by classical liberals to argue for a decrease in overall government spending and taxation.

The Purchasing Manager’s Index is an indicator of the economic health of the manufacturing sector. The PMI index is based on five major indicators: new orders, inventory levels, production, supplier deliveries and the employment environment.

BRIC refers to the emerging market countries Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Share “The 10 Most Competitive Countries in the World”

India Issues Its First Sovereign Gold Coin to Balance Gold Imports
October 1, 2015

Gold tends not to leave India once it enters. As the world’s largest importer, the country consumes massive quantities of the yellow metal—it’s on track to take in 900 tonnes of the stuff this year—where it remains in private families’ coffers, mostly in the form of jewelry and decorative heirlooms. It’s estimated that less than 10 percent of all Indian gold demand is in bars and coins.

That might change this month—strong emphasis on “might”—as the India Government Mint will issue its first-ever sovereign gold coin, just in time for the fall festival season, which kicks off November 11. The coin will reportedly feature the Ashoka Chakra, the traditional 24-spoked symbol that appears on India’s national flag.

Consider the immense popularity of the American Eagle, the Canadian Maple Leaf, the British Sovereign, the South African Krugerrand and others—and now this month, India’s coin will join their exalted ranks. You might wonder why India, whose notoriously insatiable demand for gold stretches back millennia, has only recently decided to join other nations in issuing a sovereign gold coin.

The answer has much to do with the government’s interest in trimming massive net inflows of the yellow metal and containing its impact on the country’s trade balance. As I said, gold is so highly-valued by Indian citizens that once it enters the country, it stays in the country, largely as family heirlooms.

The World Gold Council estimates that 50 percent of Indian wedding expenses is on gold. And when you consider that about 20 million weddings occur each year on average in India—many of them featuring gold in some capacity—it becomes very clear that this affinity to the precious metal is shared by all.

Furthermore, because many Indians distrust government banks, they prefer to protect their financial security by holding physical gold.

And who can blame them? India’s own central bank holds more than 557 tonnes of the metal for the very same reason: financial security.

But apparently the government takes the position that you can have too much of a good thing, even something as precious and auspicious as gold, and therefore seeks greater control on how it manages net inflows.

“Such an Indian gold coin would help reduce the demand for coins minted outside India and also help to recycle the gold available in the country,” says Arun Jaitley, India’s Minister of Finance.

But will Indians be buying? It’s probably too early to tell.

Indian Government Policy to Change Gold Investing

What can be said is that the plan to issue the coin is part of a broader government strategy to change the way Indians invest in gold. I always say that government policy is a precursor to change, and the new policies announced back in the spring are scheduled to go into effect soon.

One such program involves a gold bond, “which would not be backed by gold,” explains Jeffrey Christian, a managing partner at commodities consultancy group CPM Group, who spoke recently at the Denver Gold Forum. Instead, the bonds would be issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the underlying assumption being that some Indians would prefer gold-indexed bonds to actual bullion.

“And so they think that they can discourage physical gold demand because it put stress on [the government’s] current account balances a few years ago,” Christian says.

Then there’s the so-called “gold monetization scheme,” which is a program designed to encourage individuals and temples laden with gold to voluntarily deposit some of their bullion in exchange for a “2 percent or more” interest rate.

Theoretically, the gold would be held on deposit. In practice, however—again, according to Christian—it would be lent or sold to the jewelry industry, thereby reducing gold imports.

This means, of course, that the bullion—including everything from gold trinkets to cherished wedding ornaments—would be melted down.

“Not many [Indians] would want to see their long-preserved, family-inherited, emotionally-attached piece of yellow metal lose its identity and ‘feel’ by melting it for meager return,” writes columnist Dinesh Unnikrishnan of Indian news agency Firstpost.

The government’s multifaceted strategy might not be as drastic as the one enacted by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, which forbade the “hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates within the continental United States.” For now, Indians’ participation in the two progressed programs is completely voluntarily.

“Given the cultural and traditional affinity of Indians to their family-owned gold ornaments,” Unnikrishnan writes, “the only incentive for them to come forward and pledge their gold under the scheme is higher returns.”

Will Indians be enticed?

Take our poll!

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. By clicking the link(s) above, you will be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s) and is not responsible for its/their content.

Share “India Issues Its First Sovereign Gold Coin to Balance Gold Imports”

How Will These Leaders of 4 Billion People Change the World?
September 28, 2015

Last week the U.S. played host to three prominent and illustrious leaders to billions of people: Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pope Francis. Among them, they lead—either politically or spiritually—nearly 4 billion people worldwide, more than half of everyone living on the planet right now.

Shanghai Gold Exchange Withdrawals As Of August

The effect of their visits cannot be overstated. I was attending an ETF conference in New York City, where the arrival of the populist Francis, hugely popular and revered among more than just Catholics for his humility and inclusiveness, brought the already-clogged city streets to a veritable standstill. So stacked were the cars and trucks as a result of Pope Mania that I was forced to cancel scheduled interviews on CNBC and Bloomberg. New York Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton said that the pontiff’s arrival in the Big Apple during the United Nations General Assembly—when 90 percent of the world leaders were in the city at the same time—was the largest security challenge the department and city had ever faced.

I have immense respect for his Holy One. He embraces change, both within the Vatican and globally, and for the Jesuit tradition of education and ministry.

For many people, including me, Pope Francis is a thought-provoking figure. In his speech to the United Nations last week, he said that economic progress can be achieved through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state.” I question his economic logic while admiring his caring heart and good intentions. Far-reaching progress can best be achieved through development, not redistribution. The secular proverb “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” comes to my mind.

Certainly the pontiff’s aspiration to feed the world is honorable, but the people who take the risk to plant the seeds and work hard to harvest the crops are not to blame for the hungers that exist. America is the most charitable nation on earth and our focus for increasing prosperity should be on helping people to fish and farm for a lifetime of financial independence.

Perhaps not as wildly anticipated, but no less important, were stateside visits from the heads of the second- and seventh-largest economies in the world, China and India.

Mr. Xi: Trust Me, All’s Well

In his first stateside visit, President Xi Jinping addressed approximately 700 American businesspeople in Seattle last week, during which he, according to Foreign Policy magazine, touched on “the usual promises to stay the course on market reforms, the insistence of China’s status as a developing country” and “the plea for mutual ‘deep’ cultural understanding,” among other promises.

Mr. Xi also reassured his audience to worry not about the Chinese stock market, which I’ve written frequently about. He defended the intervention his government has made, arguing that the government has stabilized further deterioration and contained investor panic. 

Likewise, he pledged to work with the U.S. to curb additional cybersecurity breaches such as the kind that struck Sony Pictures back in November 2014.

American Business Leaders Expect Massive Growth in India

Last week marked Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second visit to the U.S., the first time being in October 2014 when he spoke at Madison Square Gardens in a rousing, rock-star reception.

As is the case with most politicians from whom much is expected, Modi’s star has dulled somewhat since then. Many business leaders are starting to grow impatient about the slowness of his government’s ability to eliminate investment hurdles.

But the promise he brings of a modern India, with electricity and Internet access for all 1.2 billion Indians, still remains more than just a dream.

U.S. business leaders seek to capitalize on this growth.

Janet Yellen Interest Rate Liftoff Delayed Again

Let’s be clear, though: India still has a lot of catching up to do. Morgan Stanley estimates that the country is at least seven years behind China when it comes to Internet penetration and online shopping. In 2014, India had about 243 million active Internet users, or about 19 percent of its population. In the same year, China had some 641 million users, or nearly half of its population, according to Internet Live Stats.

Quite contradictorily, though, Facebook users in India have skyrocketed to 100 million active monthly accounts, which represent a larger presence on the social media platform than in the U.S, according to Tech2. This means there’s huge upside indeed.

Modi: Tech-in-Chief

Narendra Modi is one of the most tech-savvy world leaders, a characteristic he wants to encourage his fellow Indians to embrace. He’s a prolific user of Twitter, followed by a staggering 15.1 million people. By comparison, President Barack Obama’s official presidential Twitter handle, @POTUS, has 4.38 million followers while @Pontifex, Pope Francis’ Twitter handle, has 7.35 million followers.

Narendra Modi vs Pesident Obama Twitter account

It’s no wonder, then, that Modi sought an audience with top tech industry leaders such as Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk—some of the same figures Mr. Xi met with earlier in the week. All of them have expressed interest in diverting more resources to India, where the next huge surge in Internet usage is expected to take place. Retail giant Amazon, for instance, plans to spend $2 billion to expand its presence in India. Facebook will offer a free Internet service through its platform.

In a YouTube video, Sundar Pichai, Google’s current Product Chief and its next CEO, welcomed Modi on his visit to immigrant-friendly Silicon Valley. Born in India himself, Pichai highlighted the strong, longstanding partnership between Indian and America’s major tech hub, stating:

The bond between India and Silicon Valley is strong. India’s long been an exporter or talented tech companies… The products by Indian graduates have helped revolutionize the world, but it is India that’s now undergoing its own revolution… Prime Minister Modi’s digital India vision is central to the revolution. It focused on connecting the 1.2 billion people in India.

You can watch Pichai’s full comments below.

In his personal tweets, Modi reassures followers that the goal of his visit is to strengthen business relations between the U.S. and India and to open his country up to further investment opportunities. This is a persistent challenge, as India is widely seen as one of the more difficult countries to conduct business in.

Modi has repeatedly pledged to speed up efforts to improve his country’s business climate for foreign investors. 

In the picture above, you can see a seated Modi surrounded by powerful Fortune 500 executives such as Citigroup’s Michael O’Neill, PepsiCo’s Indra Nooyi, IBM’s Ginni Rometty, Lockheed Martin’s Marilyn Hewson, Boeing’s Bertrand-Marc Allen and many more.

During his visit, Modi approved a $3 billion deal with Boeing—which we own in both our All American Equity Fund (GBTFX) and Holmes Macro Trends Fund (MEGAX)—a purchase that’s eclipsed by Xi Jinping’s plan to buy 300 Boeing jets worth $38 billion, not to mention an arrangement for an assembly plant to be built in China.

Chinese President Xi Jinping just approved the purchase of $38 billion worth of Boeing jets.

In our quarterly earnings webcast, I mentioned the importance of staying abreast of government policy changes and the latest purchasing manager’s index (PMI) numbers. While India’s August PMI reading holds fairly steady at 52.3, indicating manufacturing expansion, China’s still remains in contraction territory at 47.3.

Both government policy reform and PMIs help our investment team inform its strategies. Government policy, as led by the G20 countries, has unfortunately been focused largely on synchronized global taxation and regulation since 2008. These are not great precursors for commodity demand.

When we can return to a point where governments are more focused on fiscal policies, reducing taxes, streamlining regulations and unleashing capital, I think that that would be a tipping point from a big macro sector theme.

So shorter term, we’ll be looking for the change in global PMIs, which would indicate global synchronized growth. The “magic” number is when PMI is above 50, and the momentum starts when the one month crosses above the three months. This is the positive, constructive sign that demand for commodities is picking up, and we’ll be looking for it.

Please consider carefully a fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and other important information, obtain a fund prospectus by visiting or by calling 1-800-US-FUNDS (1-800-873-8637). Read it carefully before investing. Distributed by U.S. Global Brokerage, Inc.

Stock markets can be volatile and share prices can fluctuate in response to sector-related and other risks as described in the fund prospectus.

The Purchasing Manager’s Index is an indicator of the economic health of the manufacturing sector. The PMI index is based on five major indicators: new orders, inventory levels, production, supplier deliveries and the employment environment.

Fund portfolios are actively managed, and holdings may change daily. Holdings are reported as of the most recent quarter-end. Holdings in the All American Equity Fund and Holmes Macro Trends Fund as a percentage of net assets as of 6/30/2015: Sony Corp. 0.00%; Facebook Inc. 2.22% Holmes Macro Trends Fund; Apple Inc. 3.10% All American Equity Fund, 4.46& Holmes Macro Trends Fund; Tesla Motors Inc. 0.00%; Inc. 0.00%; Google Inc. 0.00%; Citigroup Inc. 1.58% All American Equity Fund; PepsiCo Inc. 1.15% All American Equity Fund; IBM 0.93% All American Equity Fund; Lockheed Martin Corporation 0.00%; The Boeing Co. 1.06% All American Equity Fund, 1.50% Holmes Macro Trends Fund. 

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. By clicking the link(s) above, you will be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s) and is not responsible for its/their content.

Share “How Will These Leaders of 4 Billion People Change the World?”

Here's the World's Most "Calming" Investment Chart
September 23, 2015


Lately there’s been quite a lot of volatility in world markets.

The Shanghai Composite Index has tumbled close to 40 percent since hitting a seven-year high in June. The S&P 500 Index dipped into correction territory after a spectacular six-year bull run. And the Chicago Board Options Exchange SPX Volatility Index—popularly known as the VIX—spiked dramatically last month.

Many investors are starting to feel cornered, with fewer and fewer “safe haven” assets to turn to.

That’s why, with so much drama in global markets right now, it’s refreshing to find an investment product that knows how to keep its cool.

Minimal Share Price Fluctuation

Take a look at the following chart. Some people might find it boring. Fair enough. I prefer to call it “calming,” like the calm, tranquil waters of a harbor. 

NEARX SharePrice Q2 click to enlarge


The near-static line you’re looking at is the share price for our Near-Term Tax Free Fund (NEARX), whose net asset value (NAV) has floated in the $2 range for more than 10 years.

This is exactly what many investors seek for their cash or short-term investments, especially now: minimal movement in the daily share price.

It’s for this reason that NEARX has become very near and dear to the hearts of our investors.

A Proven Leader in Short-Term Muni Bonds

For 20 years in a row, NEARX has delivered positive total returns, even through two surges in interest rates and two stock market crashes.



An investment in S&P 500 stocks has its place in most portfolios, but NEARX has had a stabilizing effect in times of extreme gains and losses, such as we saw between 2000 and 2009, as well as the most recent market correction.

Out of 25,000 equity and bond funds, only 30 have managed to deliver 20 straight years of positive returns, according to Lipper. Our Near-Term Tax Free Fund is one of those 30.

That’s a rare achievement indeed and represents the kind of track record most investment firms envy.

The recipient of glowing acknowledgements by popular financial and investment newsletter writers, NEARX is also highly-rated by Morningstar. It holds five stars overall among 186 Municipal National Short-Term funds as of 6/30/2015, based on risk-adjusted return.

Stay calm and start taking advantage of our fixed-income expertise by requesting more information on NEARX today.


Please consider carefully a fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and other important information, obtain a fund prospectus by visiting or by calling 1-800-US-FUNDS (1-800-873-8637). Read it carefully before investing. Distributed by U.S. Global Brokerage, Inc.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Total Annualized Returns as of 6/30/2015

Total Annualized Returns as of 6/30/2015:
Fund One-Year Five-Year Ten-Year Gross Expense Ratio Expense Cap
Near-Term Tax Free Fund 0.90% 2.27% 2.98% 1.08% 0.45%
S&P 500 Index 7.42% 17.34% 7.89% n/a n/a

Expense ratio as stated in the most recent prospectus. The expense cap is a contractual limit through April 30, 2016, for the Near-Term Tax Free Fund, on total fund operating expenses (exclusive of acquired fund fees and expenses, extraordinary expenses, taxes, brokerage commissions and interest).Performance data quoted above is historical. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Results reflect the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. For a portion of periods, the fund had expense limitations, without which returns would have been lower. Current performance may be higher or lower than the performance data quoted. The principal value and investment return of an investment will fluctuate so that your shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance does not include the effect of any direct fees described in the fund’s prospectus which, if applicable, would lower your total returns. . Performance quoted for periods of one year or less is cumulative and not annualized. Obtain performance data current to the most recent month-end at or 1-800-US-FUNDS.

Morningstar Rating


Morningstar ratings based on risk-adjusted return and number of funds
Category: Equity Precious Metals
Through: 6/30/2015

Morningstar Ratings are based on risk-adjusted return. The Morningstar Rating for a fund is derived from a weighted-average of the performance figures associated with its three-, five- and ten-year Morningstar Rating metrics. Past performance does not guarantee future results. For each fund with at least a three-year history, Morningstar calculates a Morningstar Rating based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a fund’s monthly performance (including the effects of sales charges, loads, and redemption fees), placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of funds in each category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. (Each share class is counted as a fraction of one fund within this scale and rated separately, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.)

Bond funds are subject to interest-rate risk; their value declines as interest rates rise. Though the Near-Term Tax Free Fund seeks minimal fluctuations in share price, it is subject to the risk that the credit quality of a portfolio holding could decline, as well as risk related to changes in the economic conditions of a state, region or issuer. These risks could cause the fund’s share price to decline. Tax-exempt income is federal income tax free. A portion of this income may be subject to state and local taxes and at times the alternative minimum tax. The Near-Term Tax Free Fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in securities that pay taxable interest. Income or fund distributions attributable to capital gains are usually subject to both state and federal income taxes.

The S&P 500 Stock Index is a widely recognized capitalization-weighted index of 500 common stock prices in U.S. companies. The Shanghai Composite Index (SSE) is an index of all stocks that trade on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) Volatility Index (VIX) shows the market's expectation of 30-day volatility.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor.

Share “Here's the World's Most "Calming" Investment Chart”

Net Asset Value
as of 10/12/2015

Global Resources Fund PSPFX $4.96 -0.04 Gold and Precious Metals Fund USERX $5.34 -0.04 World Precious Minerals Fund UNWPX $4.25 -0.01 China Region Fund USCOX $7.67 0.05 Emerging Europe Fund EUROX $5.77 -0.04 All American Equity Fund GBTFX $26.75 0.11 Holmes Macro Trends Fund MEGAX $20.10 0.15 Near-Term Tax Free Fund NEARX $2.25 No Change U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund UGSDX $2.01 No Change