Sunday, 7 December 2014

Gold, Silver See Modest Strength At The Start Of The Week


Gold prices are starting the week relatively strong considering Friday’s surprisingly positive nonfarm payrolls report, but some analysts are expecting to see more pressure in the near-term.
Electronic trading of Comex February gold futures  open the Sunday North American evening/Monday Asian session at $1,191.20 an ounce, up from Friday’s pit close of $1,190.40 an ounce. Shortly after the open, prices started to fall, hitting an early session low of $1,187.30 an ounce. Prices have since bounced higher; as of 9:12 p.m. EST, February gold was trading at 1,193.80 an ounce.
Silver prices are also relatively strong, benefiting from gold’s performance. Electronic trading of Comex March silver futures opened the Sunday evening/Monday morning session at $16.250 an ounce, down from Friday's pit close of $16.258 an ounce. At the open, prices quickly fell to an early session low of $16.165 an ounce. Prices have recovered since the open and as of 9:12 p.m. EST March silver was trading at 16.275 a ounce.
Analysts at HSBC said in a recent note that they expect prices will continue to fall in the near-term as the U.S. economy picks up momentum. This was reflected in the stronger-than-expected employment numbers, adding expectations that the Fed will hike interest rates sooner rather than later.
“In short, the data are robbing gold of the oxygen it needs to fuel a rally,” HSBC said in a research note published Friday afternoon. “Against a powerful consortium of higher equities and rates, and stronger (US dollar), the appeal for gold as a perceived ‘safe haven’ evaporated.”
Looking at the U.S. dollar, analysts at Brown Brothers Harriman said that it remains king of the currency world.
“It continues to be supported by the divergence in growth and interest rate differentials,” they said in a note published Sunday. “In the coming weeks, it is difficult to envision anything that will undermine this general theme.”
Edward Meir, commodities consultant with INTL FCStone noted that they are expecting the gold market to struggle in the next three-to-six months. In a report published Sunday, he said that weaker energy prices “will lower inflationary expectations and increase real interest rates, yet another reason that we would be cautious about gold’s upside potential.”

U.S. Mint To Start Offering 2015 Gold Coins Jan. 5, Silver Coins Jan. 12


The U.S. Mint plans to sell 2015-dated gold bullion coins beginning Jan. 5 and silver coins a week later, the agency said.
The Mint also said it has completed production of 2014 American Eagle and Buffalo gold bullion coins, which will remain on sale until inventories have been depleted.
The agency will begin accepting orders for 2015-dated Eagle gold coins – in one-ounce, one-half, one-fourth and one-tenth ounce sizes – and American Buffalo gold bullion coins on Monday, Jan. 5.
“As we plan to have sufficient quantities of all coins available, we will not be allocating the initial release,” the Mint said in a memo to authorized purchasers late Friday. “If the United States Mint has a remaining balance of one-ounce 2014-dated gold bullion coins, we will begin issuing them, on a fixed ratio basis, alongside the 2015-dated coins beginning with orders placed on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015.  Based on current inventory and demand, we do not anticipate having a large balance of 2014-dated one ounce gold bullion coins left.”
The Mint said it is transitioning Eagle silver production from 2014-dated coins to 2015.
“We will continue to sell the remaining inventory of 2014-dated coins, under allocation, until inventory is depleted,” the Mint said. “Based on current demand, we anticipate having enough coins to offer allocations through the week of Dec. 15th.”
The Mint will begin accepting orders for 2015-dated Eagle coins on Monday, Jan. 12. These coins will be sold under the allocation process.

Will There Be Forced Official Sellers of Gold?


Possible Side-Effects of Plunging Commodity Prices – A Look at Russia

One of our readers wrote to us with a question on a topic that will surely be of interest to a wider audience. Here is what he asked:

“As FX reserves dwindle, surely there is some potential that Russia may be forced seller of Gold? I understand your views re gold market, but would be most interested to hear your thoughts on the possible impact? Are there other options? Talk of gold backed RUB, default on USD debts, etc.

It is clear that a number of major oil producers are in severe trouble. However, Russia’s central bank has actually increased its gold reserves in recent months. It is now the world’s 5th largest official holder of gold, after increasing its stock pile to 1,150 tons in September (the most recent data available).
To this it must be kept in mind that Russia itself is a major producer of gold, the third largest in the world in fact, mining about 250 tons per year. The central bank is involved in the marketing of this gold, acting as an intermediary for producers. In spite of increasing its gold reserves quite a bit, they still only represent about 10% of Russia’s total reserves. Here is by the way a chart of gold in ruble terms:

gold in rublesIn ruble terms, gold is at a new all time high – click to enlarge.

So why has Russia’s central bank actually accelerated its gold buying (i.e., has retained more of the gold it markets for local producers than normally) in the face of increasing pressure on its foreign exchange reserves? As one commentator remarked:

From the perspective of a sovereign which is concerned about aspects of geopolitical risk, it makes sense that they would have a bias toward physical gold,” Brian Lucey, a finance professor at Trinity College Dublin and formerly an economist for the Central Bank of Ireland, said today by phone. With lower gold prices, Russia may have viewed it “as good a time as any to pick it up,” he said.

Russian officials think about this exactly as Alan Greenspan does. When Greenspan was once asked why the US treasury shouldn’t sell its remaining gold reserves, he pointed out that in extremis, such as in times of war, gold is absolutely certain to remain a viable means of payment that will be accepted by everybody. He cited the experience of Germany during WW2 to buttress this claim empirically.
We would also note that while Russian reserves have been under pressure due to capital flight and misguided attempts to defend the ruble’s exchange rate with forex market interventions, its current account has been consistently positive since the mid 1990s:

russia-current-accountRussia’s current account remains in surplus – click to enlarge.

The current account surplus may come under pressure as well in light of plunging oil prices, but Russia has used the years of plenty to build up a “rainy day” fund amounting to about $470 billion in addition to its central bank reserves. The current situation is presumably precisely what Russia’s government had in mind when it did that.
Note as an aside that the Russian government is in a very strong fiscal position – the kind most developed nations can only dream of. This is now also bound to deteriorate somewhat (although not as much as one might expect, as the ruble price of oil has barely declined), but Russia certainly still has a lot of fiscal flexibility:

russia-government-debt-to-gdpRussia’s public debt to GDP ratio. The government is nearly debt free. As an aside, there is a flat personal income tax rate of just 13% in Russia – click to enlarge.

WTICWTIC crude oil, monthly – as can be seen, prices are now back to where they already were in 2005-2006, pressuring all major oil producers – click to enlarge.

Readers may also recall that Mr. Putin has recently been persuaded by the free-market oriented faction of prime minister Medvedev that he should finally do something about official corruption, as a means to counter the effects of economic sanctions (see: “Russia Moves Toward Increasing Economic Freedom” for details). Putin agreed, as he evidently understands that Russia’s economy needs every bit of help it can get. We recently had official confirmation of the new approach in Putin’s annual address to the Duma. Here are what we believe are the most important points:

I propose a full amnesty for capital returning to Russia. I stress, full amnesty. Of course, it is essential to explain to the people who will make these decisions what full amnesty means. It means that if a person legalises his holdings and property in Russia, he will receive firm legal guarantees that he will not be summoned to various agencies, including law enforcement agencies, that they will not “put the squeeze” on him, that he will not be asked about the sources of his capital and methods of its acquisition, that he will not be prosecuted or face administrative liability, and that he will not be questioned by the tax service or law enforcement agencies.
[…]
It is essential to lift restrictions on business as much as possible, free it from intrusive supervision and control. I said intrusive supervision and control. I will consider this in more detail later. I propose the following measures in this regard.
Every inspection should become public. Next year, a special register will be launched, with information on what agency has initiated an inspection, for what purpose, and what results it has produced. This will make it possible to stop unwarranted and, worse still, ‘paid to order’ visits from oversight agencies. This problem is extremely relevant not only for business, but also for the public sector, municipal institutions and social NGOs.
Finally, it’s crucial to abandon the basic principle of total, endless control. The situation should be monitored where there are real risks or signs of transgression. You see, even when we have already done something with regard to restrictions, and these restrictions seem to be working well, there are so many inspection agencies that if every one of them comes at least once, then that’s it, the company would just fold. In 2015, the Government should make all the necessary decisions to switch to this system, a system of restrictions with regard to reviews and inspections.
Concerning small business, I propose establishing ‘holidays from inspections’. If a company has acquired a good reputation and if there have not been any serious charges against it for three years, then for the next three years it should be exempted from routine inspections by government or municipal supervisory agencies. Of course, this does not apply to emergencies, when there is a danger to people’s health and life.
Business people talk about the need for stable legislation and predictable rules, including taxes. I completely agree with this. I propose to freeze the existing tax parameters as they are for the next four years, not revisit the matter again, not change them.
Meanwhile, it is important to implement the decisions that have already been made to ease the tax burden. First of all, for those who are just setting up their operations. As we have agreed, two-year tax holidays will be provided to small businesses registering for the first time. Production facilities that are starting from scratch will be entitled to the same exemptions.

(emphasis added)
It should be obvious that if this program of liberalization is successfully implemented, it will do a lot to halt capital flight – more than the capital repatriation amnesty would do by itself. However, the two proposals go hand in hand: if owners of “flight capital” can be persuaded that official corruption is going to be successfully tackled and state interference with private enterprise will be significantly reduced, they have a big incentive to bring some of their funds back.
We would conclude from all this that the danger that Russia will become a forced seller of official gold reserves is fairly low for the time being.

Venezuela under Great Pressure

Socialist Venezuela is under far greater pressure to sell or swap some of its official gold holdings. We recently showed this chart of the black market Bolivar rate, which is a reflection of the dire straits the government finds itself in:

Bolivar black market rateThe bolivar has collapsed in the black market in Cucuta (a border town with a flourishing foreign exchange trade) – click to enlarge.

Under both Nicolas Maduro and his predecessor Huge Chavez, plenty of welfare spending and other government handouts have been funded with the country’s oil income. This policy was combined with massive inflation of the local currency, fixed exchange rates and price controls. As a result there are now shortages of goods as well as a growing shortage of foreign exchange reserves. The government is increasingly unable to pay for imports and foreign debt coming due concurrently. Its social spending has become unaffordable too. So there is a good chance that Venezuela will eventually be forced to sell some of its official gold holdings.
However, as we always point out, such news can at most have a short term psychological impact on the gold market. The gold market is so big that Venezuela’s potential sales won’t even be noticed.
Besides, it should be obvious by now that central bank gold buying in recent years has not helped the gold price one bit – QED.

Conclusion:

A few nations may indeed be forced to sell some of their official gold reserves as a result of plunging oil prices. It seems however not likely at this juncture that Russia will be one of them. Moreover, the impact on the gold market should be quite limited. We will discuss the other parts of the reader question above next week (i.e., the possibility of introducing a gold-backed ruble and the possibility of defaults on USD denominated debt).

Charts by: StockCharts, Bloomberg, BigCharts, Tradingeconomics, acting-man/dolartoday

LBMA Implosion By Reversal of its Own Gold Leverage


Discussion notes:

1. Gold Market: GOFO negative, surging gold lease rates, gold price backwardation
  • 1-month GOFO or Gold Forward rate (GOFO = LIBOR - gold lease rate) has been negative for 30 days now and 6-month GOFO has been negative for 14 days for the first time on record.
  • 1 month gold lease rate surged from 0% on Sept 17 to 0.72% on December 1 - indicator of physical gold shortage both in London and NY.
  • Price backwardation, where the gold spot price is higher than the near-dated forward contract price, was theoretically argued not to be possible because of high gold stock-to-flows ratio (i.e. 5+ billion gold ounces already above ground).
- Gold should immediately be sold on spot market and bought with forward contract to extinguish the backwardation to secure guaranteed dollar profit - yet this isn't happening.
Gold price backwardation is a condition where gold is not bidding for dollars - guaranteed profit should be taken in dollars - an indication we are building toward currency crisis.
"... This is the key to EVERYTHING!!! It is not "gold liquidity" that the bullion banks create... it is DOLLAR LIQUIDITY. Dollars bidding on MSFT stock set the value of that stock. If dollars are frantically bidding on MSFT (high velocity), the stock skyrockets. If dollars stop bidding for MSFT all at once (low velocity), the price falls to zero. This is true for everything in the world except gold.
Gold bids for dollarsIf gold stops bidding for dollars (low gold velocity), the price (in gold) of a dollar falls to zero. This is backwardation!
Fekete says backwardation is when "zero [gold] supply confronts infinite [dollar] demand." I am saying it is when "infinite supply of dollars confronts zero demand from real, physical gold... in the necessary VOLUME." So what's the difference? Viewed this way, can anyone show me how we are not there right now? And I'm not talking about your local gold dealer bidding on your $1,200 with his gold coin. I'm talking about Giant hoards of unencumbered physical gold the dollar NEEDS bids from.
Think about it. You can't make it cold in July by simply rigging the thermometer....
2. Gold market trading volume
  • NYSE stock trading volume is averaging $50 billion per day spiking to $120 billion per day.
  • LBMA (80% of daily global gold trading) trades 160 M oz. of gold in gross daily trading volume in September 2014 using the LBMA's 10:1 ratio of daily gross trading volume to daily net settled trading volume http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/Loco_London_Liquidity_Surveyrv.pdf
  • $192 billion per day of gold gross trading volume (vs. NYSE $50 billion) on the LBMA is AVERAGE dollar value of trading in September 2014.
  • In June 2013, LBMA traded 290 million oz. per day on average or $406 billion per day of gross daily trading volume.
3. Leverage in the LBMA will destroy the LBMA
  • Current implied open interest using 2x 160 M oz. daily trading volume is 320 million oz.; using 3x trading volume open interest is 480 million oz.
  • The LBMA refuses to divulge gold and silver open interest to the public.
  • Primarily 'unallocated' (virtual) gold contracts being traded with only notional gold backing (compare this to the Shanghai Gold Exchange where 1 kg of gold must be deposited for each 1 kg spot contract that is created).
  • LBMA indicates that 90% of daily trading is spot trading - you can create the price but cannot create the metal with virtual trading and gearing of trading instruments.
  • Two examples of creating leverage in the LBMA gold and silver market (i) Unallocated positions as well as (ii) rehypothecation of forward contracts creates exceedingly high claims per gold oz. available for delivery.
  • This paper leverage (multiple claims per physical gold oz.) quickly puts the LBMA into distress as physical metal is called for delivery and withdrawn collapsing gold backing by an estimated 100x for each gold oz that is withdrawn.
  • Many countries now accumulating gold in size and hearing of houses that have borrowed forwards and sold spot (shorting gold) are being called to deliver gold.
  • Swiss vote was a transient factor (1,500 tonnes to be accumulated over 5 years) but the global secular trend for physical delivery and withdrawal from artificially manipulated markets continues. A crisis at the LBMA will grow as physical gold and silver continues to be withdrawn at an accelerating rate due to the impact of reverse application of the virtual gearing of physical metal contracts that have been used to manipulate precious metals at the LBMA. The LBMA will in the end be detonated by this reverse application of the LBMA's own paper manipulation of precious metals using leverage of trading instruments (which price manipulation has also allowed manipulated of global interest rates).
  • The price action of gold despite the physical gold shortage as visible through backwardation, high lease rates etc., is indicative of just how disconnected the LBMA is as a gold market.
  • Ignore the 'wave action' of daily price action of gold and other precious metals and be aware that a massive tide is rising for all precious metals which will overwhelm paper manipulation of physical precious metals.
4. Deflationary Collapse and John Exter's Warning
IN SUMMARY
  • Physical gold is being withdrawn from the financial system especially at the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) metals market
  • Reversal of the estimated 100:1 paper-to-physical metal gearing at the LBMA will lead to an accelerated collapse of the LBMA
  • Withdrawal of physical gold from the market is a secular trend that is accelerating due to the mispricing of gold and silver through the leveraged paper trading on the LBMA and NY COMEX markets
  • Investors should ignore the daily 'wave action' from the paper metals markets and focus on the unstoppable 'rising tide' that will lift precious metals to enormous heights
Why OPEC Will Tolerate Cheap Oil\

By: 
 John Browne

Despite falling oil prices, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) voted on November 27th not to cut production in order to boost prices. The key to this decision appears to have been the attitude of Saudi Arabia, which has long been the first among equals in the coalition. Not surprisingly, the decision led to further oil price declines, and led many observers to conclude that OPEC has largely lost the ability to upwardly influence the price of petroleum. But this determination ignores the wider geopolitical considerations that may be convincing Saudi Arabia to be perfectly content, for now, with lower prices.
 
With about 20 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and producing between 10 and 13 percent of the global oil usage, Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil producer ahead of the U.S., China, Iran and Canada. Perhaps more importantly, with its developed and easily accessible oil fields, Saudi Arabia has some of the lowest "lifting costs" in the world. Some estimate that it only costs the Saudis less than $5 to extract a barrel of oil from its fields. This is stark contrast to the much higher costs in rival countries and offshore and of shale producers. This permits the Saudis to withstand a protracted price slump far easier than other countries. The Saudis can use this ability as a weapon to achieve its strategic ends.
 
Modern U.S./Saudi relations were shaped towards the end of WWII by negotiations between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Saudi King Ibn Saud. In return for Saudi cooperation over oil, the United States guaranteed Saudi Arabia military protection. Despite the clear ideological differences between a conservative Wahabbi Sunni Kingdom and a Western democracy, this policy has largely held for some 68 years. Saudi Arabia exercised moderation and consistency over oil supplies from the Arab Gulf. In return, the United States led an impressive Allied military defeat of an Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia in Gulf War I.
 
While the current dip in energy prices clearly does hurt Saudi Arabia, it hurts her enemies far more, particularly Iran and Russia, which has been a key enabler of Iranian power and an international pariah on its own. Putting pressure on Russia has also become a key strategic interest of Washington.
 
For many oil exporting nations, the tax revenues generated from petroleum constitute a major portion of government budgets and have become essential to the maintenance of long-term solvency. Nations like Russia, with oil generating 50 percent of tax revenues in 2013, according to the Ministry of Finance, are assumed to have a 'Budget Break Even Cost' (BBEC) of around $105 per barrel based on Citi Research's data. Obviously the current price, less than $70 per barrel, is placing a great deal of strain on President Putin's finances. Iran has a BBEC of some $131 oil. Recovering from recent sanctions, Iran has few currency reserves. Therefore, oil at $70 will necessitate an early cut in government spending, risking civil discontent and possible regime change.
 
Saudi Arabia is assumed to have a lower BBEC of some $98 per barrel. And although current prices are lower than that, over decades Saudi Arabia has accumulated vast foreign exchange reserves. As a result, many observers believe she can sustain her economic budget for a considerable time with oil selling at below $93 a barrel. Meanwhile, countries such as Russia, Iran and, particularly, Venezuela, which already is nearing default on its debt, must start cutting government spending to reflect depleted oil revenues. These outcomes are firmly in the interests of both Saudi Arabia and her longtime strategic partner, the United States.
 
And although U.S. consumers are now enjoying the benefits of lower fuel costs, which will help spark consumer demand, the threat to the U.S. energy industry should not be overlooked. U.S. oil companies have invested heavily in horizontal oil drilling and so-called fracking to increase well yields. U.S. domestic oil production has risen significantly over the past five years and now approaches 8 million barrels per day based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, much of this investment was made on the basis of $100 oil. If the price stays below $70 for long, the continued viability of some smaller U.S. oil companies might be threatened, particularly in Texas and South Dakota. Citigroup Inc.'s recent forecast that the U.S. would pump 14.2 million barrels per day by 2020 could prove illusive and result in job losses.
 
However, there are more serious strategic concerns currently in play. The Obama Administration's recent engagement with Iran may be of great concern to the Saudis, who consider Iran to be a mortal threat. Currently, the U.S. and Iran are in protracted negotiations over Iranian nuclear capabilities. The U.S. appears to be willing to acquiesce to Iranian desires in exchange for more cooperation against ISIS.
 
These concerns may have escalated this week when it was announced that Iran had recently conducted air strikes against ISIS insurgents within Iraqi territory. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reacted to these revelations as a "welcome development." Although ISIS should be considered an enemy to both the U.S. and Iran, American acceptance of Iranian military intervention in Iraq can be seen as a clear shift in Washington's policy towards Tehran.
 
If such is the case, the Saudis may begin to feel 'dumped' by Obama, and may be tempted to turn more forcefully towards China, the world's largest oil importer, offering cheap oil in return for strategic protection against a new American-backed Iranian regional threat.
 
The effects of international recession and the U.S. 'oil boom' were slow to create a production glut because, until recently, production from Iran, Russia, Iraq and Libya was curtailed by sanctions and war. Cheap oil likely will protect and increase Saudi Arabia's oil market share.
 
The real costs of Obama's dropping the U.S.'s 68-year friendship with Saudi Arabia in favor of Iran are becoming increasingly apparent. If Saudi Arabia is forced closer to China, taking with her other Arab Gulf States (OAPEC), the long-range implications could be extremely serious for America and Europe.

Chinese GDP Surpasses USA (*when Measurement Adjusted)

A story has been echoing around the financial news for a few weeks. One article about it, It’s official: America is now No. 2 by Brett Arends at MarketWatch, came to my attention. Arends asserts that the Chinese economy is now larger than the economy in the US. Here’s what he said.
“We’re no longer No. 1. Today, we’re No. 2. Yes, it’s official. The Chinese economy just overtook the United States economy to become the largest in the world.”
With GDP data from the IMF, we can easily see that the US economy is bigger than China’s. The IMF estimates 2014 GDP at $10.4T for China and $17.4T for the USA. So how does Arends claim the contrary? He uses different data that IMF adjusts. By this methodology, the Chinese economy is “really” $17.6T.
Really?
Although Chinese GDP is lower when measured in yuan and converted to dollars, Arends and others claim that this isn’t right. Goods and services are cheaper in China. So they don’t think we should convert yuan to dollars using the market exchange rate. They use a concept calledPurchasing Power Parity (PPP). PPP is used to determine a different exchange rate for the yuan than the market rate. This is how they arrive at a “real” Chinese GDP of $17.6T.
We have long been trained to accept purchasing power as the means of adjusting the dollar from historical periods. For example, JP Morgan was worth $68M at his death in 1913. To calculate what that’s worth in today’s dollars, most people would refer to the Consumer Price Index. They use CPI to adjust the $68M figure from 1913 to a $1.6B modern value. As I wrote on Forbes, that approach is wrong. They should use gold which, unlike the dollar, is the same in 1913 as in 2014. Morgan was worth 3.4M ounces of gold, which is $4.1B today.
Adjusting the Chinese economy by PPP is simply applying the consumer price idea to a whole economy. If we use prices to adjust dollar figures from historical periods in the US, why not use them to adjust foreign but contemporary dollar amounts? If we can use consumer prices to measure the net worth of a man who died in 1913, then it seems like we can use them to measure the economic output of China also.
The approach is fatally flawed, because the value of a currency isn’t derived from prices. As an analogy, suppose you are using a steel meter stick to measure a rubber band. When you stretch the rubber band, it gets longer. This is not equivalent to saying that the meter stick gets shorter. You do not measure meter sticks by how many rubber bands fit end to end. Measurement is one-way.
Money is the meter stick of economic value (though this principle is clouded in paper currencies, because they are falling). Prices rise or fall for non-monetary reasons. Prices may be cheaper in China for a variety of reasons, such as lower wages. Money measures these changes, not the other way around.
By the same principle, prices may be higher in New York than in Phoenix. Does anyone dare to say that these are different dollars? Should we adjust New York dollar downwards towards the Phoenix dollar, based on PPP? How about the Scottsdale dollar (Scottsdale is a ritzy suburb) vs. the south Phoenix dollar?
Standards of living certainly vary based on local prices, but that is a separate issue. The dollar is the same in New York as it is in Phoenix. We say that the dollar is fungible—a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and each is accepted in trade the same as any other.
Arends uses the Starbucks venti Frapuccino as an example, which he says is cheaper in Beijing than in Minneapolis. A cup of coffee produced in China cannot be sent to Minneapolis where it will fetch a higher price. However, money is unlike coffee. It can go from Beijing to Minneapolis instantly. That’s why there is one price for the yuan globally, but a different price for coffee on every street corner. Bulk commodities are of course more transportable than cups of coffee, but even they cost time and money to transport.
It’s an essential property of money that it is quick and cheap to send it somewhere. Money will always move from where it has less value to where it is valued more highly. The result is that money’s value is consistent everywhere.
This consistency allows us to convert the yuan to dollars, to compare Chinese GDP to American GDP. This is perfectly valid (well, if you accept that GDP itself is valid), because the comparison is instantaneous. We do not have to worry about the falling value of either currency that occurs over longer periods of time. We could use gold to compare the Chinese economy to the American, but it’s not necessary in this.
The price of Frapuccino in China may be important to caffeine addicts who travel to Beijing, but it cannot be used to adjust a currency or a country’s GDP.
Chinese GDP is a lot smaller than American GDP. Will that change? Maybe, but it’s not the job of economists to embed such speculative assumptions into the data.