Much as I hate to disagree with Krugman, his thesis that oil futures have no effect on oil prices is one that I believe is incorrect. On the face of it Krugman should be right -- why should a bet on the future direction of oil prices have any effect on the price today? If I bet it'll go up 10 bucks in a week and you bet it won't, and at the end of the week we settle that bet, did that have any effect on the price of oil? Of course not. And, essentially (but not quite) that's what futures and options do. Oh, with futures you can take delivery, but most people don't, they close out the contract before it comes due. (Because what are you going to do when the tanker pulls up and wants to offload that crude oil? Hmmmm?)
But, in fact, the oil market doesn't operate like normal futures markets. Let's take Brent oil, which is the benchmark price used for most European, African and Middle Eastern oil. There is no actual spot market for Brent. A basic contract for Brent, called Dated Brent, indicates that the seller can deliver oil anytime during a specified month, and has to give 21 days notice to the buyer. In other words, a basic Brent contract is already a futures contract in some key aspects. (Mabro, 66). If the price increases, you've made money. And if it declines, in effect, you've just lost money.
On top of Dated Brent, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran all use futures markets to determine the price charged to actual physical customers in Europe for oil. They take the Brent Weighted Average (BWAVE), a weighted index of futures on a given day, and use it to determine the price. (Mabro, 68-9). So the futures market is directly influencing the price of actual oil. They do this because, ironically, the old spot markets were very subject to price squeezes and futures markets, being much larger and more liquid, with more participants, were seen as harder to manipulate.
Now because of how arbitrage works, and because Brent oil can often be substituted for other types of oil, the price of Brent is hardly going to substantially differ from other types of oil. If it does, arbitrageurs will step in and close the difference.
All of which is to say, as best I can determine, yes, futures prices do factor into the actual price of oil. The "spot" market does not exist separate from the futures market in all cases, indeed, strictly speaking there isn't even a Brent spot market in existence. The price is determined by futures or dated contracts that have features in common with futures.
Now, if a huge amount of speculation is driving up futures prices, which it is, that will feed back directly into the price of oil. So if you want to reduce the price of oil, decreasing the amount of speculative activity is a good idea. The Saudis, when they claim that speculators are partially to blame, aren't being disingenuous, they're telling a truth. Of course, it's also true that futures markets have an effect on oil prices because the Saudis, among others, set up the market that way. Yet, if they were to change the pricing they'd simply move the speculation to the sort of physical storage that Krugman and others see little or no sign of. The effect is unclear, on the one hand it's a smaller more illiquid market. On the other hand, you have to actually take delivery of the oil and hold onto it, and there's only so much oil storage in the world, while the numbers of futures contracts which can be sold is theoretically infinite.
In general liberals should be for regulation of futures and options markets; for regulation of derivatives markets as a group. They do serve a legitimate purpose for hedging, but when they become much larger than needed for hedging, their original purpose tends be lost and they become a casino. Hedgers require some speculators to make the market, but they don't require as many as they're getting.
This doesn't mean that speculators are responsible for the majority of the price increases in oil and gasoline. They aren't. Fundamental supply and demand considerations are causing the price increases. Speculation, however, is making the rise more rapid than it would be if just driven by fundamentals alone. The easiest way to see a fairly quick drop in the price of oil is to crack down on speculation. However, such a drop will be temporary, not permanent. Until the fundamental problems of demand and supply are dealt with, oil prices will continue their long steady rise. That rise is a good thing, in the same sense that feeling pain when you're on fire is a good thing - because it tells you "stop this behaviour".
But having someone pouring oil on the fire while you're trying to get out of it isn't helpful, and that's what speculators are doing. It's very profitable for many of them to do so, but there's no particular reason society should allow them to profit from the pain of others.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Ian!
Why do I think this will not play well in Crawford?
Long as I’m hear, chatting among . . . myself . . . great post, Ian!
Ian, McCain is now giving credit to the decrease in gas prices to Bush.
If I knew anything about futures I would say something but since I don’t, I won’t.
I’m behind on my news today. Why is Bush responsible for the drop?
OT while looking for link to number 6 above: Jindal declines VP slot with McBoosh.
Haven’t seen any news on that myself but I’d wager it has something to do with jawboning (of an a**).
Guessing here, but I’m sure they will cite Chimpy’s “psychocology,’ or something.
Good afternoon, Ian.
Still miss the “new comments widget”. Ah well.
McCain said the $10 drop was due to Bush lifting the presidential ban on offshore drilling. McCain did say that economics was not his strong suit.
Ian, I heard this on MPR a few hours ago, but can’t find the story. Yet.
Oh. No. Even market participants are not stupid enough to think lifting the ban would do anything. Even if you think it might /eventually/ help, you’re talking a few years minimum. Regular futures, let along spot markets, don’t take that into account (there are some very long term contracts that do, but… no.)
Here ya go. It’s an AP story on Politico.
Best line in the Politico story re Bush being responsible for oil price decrease:
ROFLLLLLLL
Geez, abundant sun + abundant salt water + brainpower + planning = long term, low cost clean renewable abundant energy, hydrogen and electricity produced from the burning of hydrogen, yields water! Here is one way to reduce per capita energy costs compared to 700 billion dollars a year in “Liberty” being sucked out of the system, while addressing pollution! Escalating energy costs… the great inflater!
So much for scarcity, speculation and the supply side economics of a “monopolized manipulated commodity” called black gold, Texas tea, oil?
Responsible leadership, we have not!
Thanks barbara.
Love this:
Ian, McCain was speaking in Wilkes-Barre and I’m sure that some audience members probably questioned that answer also.
Of course I am considered a bit of a petulant child at Eschaton when I pointed out that Congress threatening to rein in the speculation in the oil markets seems to have had a deleterious effect on the price of oil . . . .
(But what do I know?)
And Ian, I truly enjoy your articles here. Thank you so much. BTW, though I comment infrequently, I am always a reader. Always.
Is it possible to roll a futures contract forward?
This from Rude Pundit, who has trouble verbalizing what he’s thinking.
Completely OT but “energy” related:
The ad at the top of the right side of his page is (at least for me)
a link to an ethanol site.
The picture shows the mother (Dana, is that you?) holding her baby
above the gas tank while filling up.
Although at least she isn’t smoking, it does scream “not Mommy of the Year”.
NBC/WSJ has a new poll out and Obama is up by 6% overall. It was taken before his overseas trip. The interesting number is that they are close on the economy. Obama was 57% and McCain 52% when asked who was strong on the economy. WTF are the American people thinking when today he said the Bush was responsible for lowering gas prices.
I’m sure they did, because the remains of the coal mines are still there and people drive past the ‘landscaped’ mountains of tailings next to Rt. I81 every day there. They KNOW what happens when fossil fuels play out.
I agree with Ian, not Krugman on this issue. Another major issue that is driving futures speculation upwards is the constant drumbeat of war with Iran. If Shrub got on teevee and said that all military options against Iran are off the table, the price of oil would drop very quickly. (from an article I read in the Nation.)
Shrub, of course, will do no such thing, for he is an oil man. That’s what some of daddy’s friends told him and he believes it.
No. Once you buy a contract, you are stuck with it.
Why hedges at all? If you can’t win all the hedges and win half and lose half what have you protected by the hedge? In the end you are out the transaction fees and associated costs of betting.
No?
According to the NBC/WSJ poll, just 14% of those supporting McCain are excited about voting for him. Just wow!
Thanks for the link. I woulda seen it later, but I saw it now and I am LMAO.
This is just wrong. The supply demand equation has not changed noticeably in the last few years. I would love to see any figures you may have that indicate that shortages actually occurred. In fact, supply was slightly in excess of demand over the last couple of years when the increase in oil was at its steepest.
Excess speculation has been the major driver in oil prices and this has been true since 2004.
And of course, paper/non-commercial hedgers drive the price of oil up because of their effects on the futures price. This is because physical hedgers like refineries and airlines still need to hedge and take physical possession of oil so they have to pay the price that’s there.
It’s not so much a question of making or losing money, it’s a question of locking a price in that you know you can make a profit at. There have been occasions where the price of a commodity has dropped in half at harvest time because of a huge harvest, and if that happens you could be destroyed. Of course, you lose the upside, as well (or properly done, you lose /some/ of the upside) but often security is more important. Avoiding being wiped out is more important than the chance of make it all.
Investment psychologists always find that people have the “wrong” instincts when it comes to making investment “bets”. For example, most people won’t take this bet: 50% chance of losing everything you own. 50% chance of winning 10X that amount. It’s a no brainer on the math, but people don’t take it. They aren’t exactly wrong, but the problem is they generalize that to trading/investments overall, where it becomes a numbers game.
If there were actual physical shortages, the price would rise even faster. It’s not so much that demand is lower than supply, it’s that people are managing demand so that it stays lower than supply. More oil would be being used if the price was lower, that’s the point.
Hugh, I don’t understand much of any of this but I can tell you that over the past couple of months, the figures that I’ve been getting in order to put bids in for running our electric peaking plant(and which are largely based on natural gas because that’s what the plant turbine runs on) were totally out of control - had nothing to do with supply or natural gas available or with temperatures(demand). I was told numerous times when I asked that it was speculators who had taken their money out of real estate. Over the past four weeks, those figures have gone incrementally down but in the past week, they have dropped four dollars.
BTW if you would like to see the NYMEX near futures contract prices for the last 25 years you can find them here:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rclc1d.htm
It seems to me that there are a number of variables playing into the high cost of gas. 1) Speculation; 2) Storage capacity; 3) the dollar drop against most foreign currencies; 4) supply and demand (especially since we don’t know the world’s supply.) 5) refining capability — not necessarily in that order.
Why not tap into “supply” through the strategic reserve? Then control speculation and force an expansion of refining capacity (especially since they are making more diesel than regular gasoline).
These variable remind me of what happens when you buy a new car using a trade-in and you finance it through the dealership. Now you’ve given them three transactions to get you.
In the case of gas — we have five variables out there, a couple of which could be better controlled.
Ian, thank you for explaining this, it’s about time i start to understand what’s going on.
Hedges are for large consumers of petro products, such as airlines.
That way they can lock in a known price on said product. If they guess wrong(price goes down), they lose some money, but if they guess right, they save a shitload.
IMO, that’s the only legitimate use of hedges on oil.
Went back to reading, and saw Ian’s superior answer @31.
He explained it more thoroughly than I could ever hope to.
If supply and demand are in equilibrium then prices shouldn’t rise at all. They should stay the same. If there is excess supply they should fall. If there is insufficient supply, then prices should rise, and could even rise sharply if the shortfall was large enough.
I get the feeling that you are inventing a new market principle that simply is at odds with how markets work. Demand is demand. Supply is supply. People in a market always manage the two. So they’re management now between the two is really no different than it was in the past but now with no evidence that I can see you are telling me that this somehow explains a different result. It doesn’t.
In my scandals list item 365, I have an analysis of the cost of oil not gas. For example, the futures contract price for oil when Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 was $32. Even if you assumed a 50% devaluation in the dollar, this would mean that the contract price should be $48/bbl. The first major increase in oil prices took place in 2004 even though supplies were good. I also have a more general look at prices at my item 308.
ian - it seems like you are saying that while there is speculation, there is no bubble in oil prices. do you really think that?
I did a rough back-of-the cerebrum calculation the other day, and at ~100M bbl/day (high) x $100/bbl (low) = ~$10B, it seems very possible for even a reasonably leveraged player to significantly influence, if not outright corner, the oil market.
Given the amount of free money the Fed is pumping into the investment banks (are we still at $~25B/week?), it seems very possible that the Goldman-led runup from $70 to $140 was the backdoor way for the big boys to cover some of their toxic CDO losses with commodities profits.
Just more socializing of the corporate gambling losses. :-(
“Heads I win, tails you lose…your house.”
Any thoughts on how much Middle East instability is a factor? I remember hearing a lot about the “risk premium” caused by saber-rattling at Iran about a year ago, but that seems to have dropped off the radar now that the GOP is chanting that it’s nothing but supply and demand. When the wingnuts start spouting their psychological theories about Bush’s executive order, it immediately struck me that if anything in current events is a factor, it’s more likely to be that the administration was talking to Iran instead of threatening them.
But I certainly don’t claim any great understanding of all this, and I’ll be interested to hear the opinions of those more knowledgeable.
Thank you for that list. I have it bookmarked and send it out in emails all the time.
Everyone I know has been given it as a “gift” at least once.
Hugh,
Do you know if anyone has put that onto a graph with indications of world events (wars, threats, elections, Gramm’s bill to move speculation overseas, etc) marked? I think that would be informative.
If what you are saying is that there is no ONE cause to the high price of oil, then I agree wholeheartedly.
Obviously under the rubric of “speculation” we have 1) talk of war with Iran; 2) Sporatic “problems” in Nigeria; 3) Lawsuit in Venezuela; 4) virtually nothing coming out of Iraq; 5) pipeline problems with Russia, as well as futures contracts.
The natural gas market is interesting because Levin inserted language into the Farm Bill to close the Enron loophole that allowed unreported OTC trading. The thing is that Levin screwed up so closing the loophole affected natural gas but not crude oil markets. I would have to check but that is a big fall off in prices. Although it is still early days, moves to re-introduce or tighten up some regulation of futures markets do seem to be having an effect. If they are carried through with, price declines could be dramatic.
michael greenberger has been testifying before various congressional committees to the following:
so it doesn’t seem that he thinks the oil markets are so very different from other commodity markets with regards to the affect futures prices have on spot prices.
this is not something i understand - but i’d like to…..
Um, say what? Markets manage demand through the mechanism of price. Prices are rising to keep demand under supply. Or that’s part of it, in any case. The models I have seen show that the current price of oil based on supply and demand alone is in the $80/90 range, per barrel. That’s a lot more than it was 7 years ago. Moveover supply is dropping at about a million and a half barrels a year, iirc (in terms of conventional supply) and the Chinese are buying a lot more oil. There are almost certainly no major conventional finds left in the world. Now, as it happens I expect a decline in the price of oil, possibly this year, certainly by mid way through next. But I don’t expect a full collapse for 5 to 6 years, and that will be demand side driven because of massive conservation and huge amounts of non-oil energy capacity coming on line.
Also, the oil market isn’t exactly an ideal market, leaving aside the futures considerations discussed above, in fact most major oil buyers are in multi-year contracts. The actual average price being paid per barrel by most major users appears to be around the $100/barrel mark.
and 6) Bush’s destruction of the value of a dollar
Ian,
It’s my understanding that a secondary factor in the mortgage industry collapse was that the derivatives market eventually got to the point that it was five times the market of actual loans written. Primary, of course was the increased writing of bad loans, but some argue that this increase was driven in part by the voracious derivatives market needing more loans to slice and dice.
Is there an estimate of the ratio of futures (and derivatives thereof) to actual oil in the market at any given time? If that ratio is large, is that a major factor in speculation driving prices up faster?
I think oil should be around $80/$90 a barrel based on fundamentals (including having a large amount of Iraqi oil offline). So what remains is the bubble. Yes, there is a bubble. But even without the bubble, prices would still be much higher than we were used to.
Do you think the current price of gasoline is reflected by the 100 or 140 ish ppb today?
I use to buy into the idea of a chronic risk premium much more than I do now. It is precisely what you would expect in a rational market that if there is a threat to the oil supply there would be a natural tendency to hedge against, i.e. hurricanes, wars, the threat of wars, possibility of a government falling, etc. But once those are dealt with or recognized not to affect supply, prices should fall back. The most obvious example of this is the Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006. Prices spiked but fell back as that crisis resolved. OTOH prices were already on the way up in 2005 a couple of months before Katrina came ashore. I should also note that there can also be countervailing moves. Saudi pronouncements that they would open the spigot (as well as concerns about a possible economic slowdown) caused oil prices to fall following 9/11.
What has been happening since 2004 is that prices go up but they don’t fall back, or fall completely. Even with oil closing at $124/bbl today, the price is still sky high.
I think what they’re refering to is the secondary securities market - for bundled product divided up into tranches. They could take those products and you could do products on top of them, and so on, but I’m not entirely sure. Bottom line though is that the entire revenue stream was resting on an inverted pyrmaid - foundation much smaller than superstructure and that tends to be dangerous. It can be ok if it is just “best completely unrelated to the market” as Krugman seems to think oil futures are. But if it isn’t, and in the housing market it wasn’t, then it becomes very dangerous indeed. An explanation of the inverted housing pyramid is here.
And, no doubt oil companies will report record profits for this year.
Thanks!
Re world oil supply and demand, these are the figures:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls
Your statements about an imbalance are not borne out.
If there’s a bubble on oil prices, it could easily pop after the summer driving system- so what will the political conequences be if that happens?
then aren’t your conclusions entirely dependent on when “we were used to” is?
for example: if it was last year (say exactly 1 year ago when the price was $75/barrel according to hugh’s link @ 34) - then, even according to your own numbers the vast majority of the price rise is due to a speculation bubble. unless, that is, you think that oil price per barrel of oil a year ago should have been only $30/barrel (based on fundamentals as your estimate of $80-90 is for today).
so i guess my question is the following: what do you think the price should have been (based on market fundamentals only) for oil 1, 2 and 5 years ago?
Probably. If their profits are smaller in the gasoline arena, they make up for it elsewhere. And no, gasoline prices don’t reflect the level of crude oil prices. The spike in oil prices has definitely pushed up gasoline prices but nowhere near where they would be if gasoline and crude oil prices were directly coupled.
OT but if anyone can get the media to pay attention:
given your previous predictions of world wide economic recession (or worse), i’d think that demand destruction via economic contraction would also play a role is decreasing prices?
Hydrogen is not the future. Sorry. Please read up on the Joule-Thomsn effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule-Thomson_effect
Hydrogen heats when it expands. So much so it can spontaneously ignite.
It’s hard to make liquid, hard to transport, and in liquid form at STP, cold. Dangerously cold.
We know how to transport liquids and electricity. My bet is on the electricity.
Exposing Bush’s historic abuse of power
A must read on how this maladministration has disregarded the Constitution and the rule of law!
I can hear Congress’ yawns on this all the way out here in the Midwest. I would dearly like to hear someone, anyone, in Washington explain what it would take to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. Because no matter how reckless and lawless, the answer always seems to be nope not that.
Neither hydrogen nor electricity are sources of energy—it takes energy to produce either.
There is another factor that is part of this…. In France & Italy gas was running between $8-9.00/gallon….. BUT the car we rented was getting 66 miles per gallon. Now calculate your current cost per mile on your car driving in the US and that is where the Europeans are saving…… The cost per mile is a lot less for them than ours because they have cars that get way more miles per gallon. Cars you will never see here in the states.
I suspect that we will begin to see those cars very soon. Many of em are MADE by GM and Ford–
GM Opal flex fuel was one of the cars….. YEP… first the Austin, then the SMART cars and finally something that gets more than 20-something per mile…
Perhaps speculation has played a role in the increases- perhaps not. The crucial question, I believe, is whether when demand increases, supply is CAPABLE of increasing to meet that demand- if not- we’re going to see rising prices.
Ford is actually retooling some of their factories over here to produce those european models, katy. It’ll take a bit of time, but we’ll see them over here. The problem is can we make it until then? I dunno. Dunno exactly what GM’s planning, much less chrysler.
GM is already bringing some of the Opel product here under the Saturn brand- there’s plenty more to come.
The thing is these cars already exist, they are manufactured and used in other countries BUT they cannot be imported into the US due to regulations/laws. THAT needs to be changed.
America needs high speed trains, mass transit, smart urban planning and so much more…..
Thanks for this post. There is a possibility that Phil Gram’s Enron expemption could be playing a big role. That plays a big role in one of the theories for how futures prices might be driving contract and spot prices above an equilibrium based on fundamentals of supply and demand for, like, acutally using oil to do stuff. The idea is that on this unregulated, mostly unobservable, and rather large market, oil producers are buying contracts to deliver oil, and tearing them up, that is, delivering oil to themselves. This would be a way that would reduce the short side of the market (people who think the futures price is too high) from bringing the price back to equilibrium levels. It is also the kind of thing that a formal exchange, or regulation would either control, make observable, or eliminate altogether. I guess that would make sense for producers, if the feedback loop they maintain through contract provisions provided a strong enough link between futures and contract prices.
Also, the interim report of the interagency commodity task force is out, links are below.
The interim commodity task force report on oil market:
http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/g.....il0708.pdf
Post from Oil Drum with an interesting graph,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4334
Post from Kevin Drum, where I found it.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....014150.php
This is my 3rd Iron Law of Energy: In the short run, the price of oil is excessively high and in the long run, it is absurdly low.
We are at or near the crossover point but this is what has really confounded me about prices over the last 4 years is that they have been rising without any particular reference to supply and demand and how the near appearance of peak oil will affect these. Peak oil will drive prices in the not too distant future but it is not driving prices now.
Ian,
It is not only the oil market that is driven by speculators - it’s my understanding that other commodities such as corn, wheat, copper, silver, etc., etc. are also dealing with bubbles due to the fact that the contracts on said items are being bought up by speculators, specifically Morgan Stanley, since they apparently have reportedly losses that have been surprisingly less than what was expected due to their exposure in the mortgage market.
In other words, is it true that there is a cause and effect between the “lesser” losses suffered by the holder of these contracts?
True. There’s no doubt about the need for trains. The fun part is going to be either building new lines and/or wresting control from all the freight companies that get priority over the current lines that Amtrak actually uses nowadays. That’s the one thing that causes the most delays with trains. Freight gets priority, not passenger trains. And the freight companies LOVE it that way.
I’d love to have high speed trains here. I’d rather travel by train than drive long distances. I can’t afford to fly a lot, so a train is an excellent alternate.
Also:
It is futile to try to read the tea leaves of day to day fluctuations in prices, either on spot or futures markets. The idea that the drop in price is due to some announcement by Bush that will reduce the price by a few cents maybe ten years from now had a big impact on futures or spot prices is just silly.
Hugh, your data from the IEA can be used to understand inventory adjustments, but other than that it does not say anything about how equilibrium prices are formed.
Maybe in a year or two we will know. If fundamentals are reason for high prices, the price drop should be accompanied by evidence of substitution out of oil for real uses. As soon as mix of capital for turning raw materials into energy changes, the oil market adjusts very very quickly -or, at least it has in the past. I have not worked in this area for years, but these days I guess you would watch how transportation and residential heating capital stock changes.
If due to speculation operating through normal inventory adjustment theores, then price drop should be accompanied by movement of money from fugures markets, and drop in worldwide inventories from above normal to below normal (they have mostly been far above normal for most of last 18 months).
If due to speculation operating on spot price not through inventory adjustment, then I am not sure what to look for. I guess you would have to get deep into the weeds of changes in futures markets, both observable and regulated, and the Phil Gram/Enron exemption portion which is unregulated and mostly unobservable. We can ask Ian to help us, I guess.
congress is really really busy doing
the people’s bushco’s business. they don’t have time for unimportant matters like impeachment.Fast trains require special track and DUAL track- so that trains can go both north and south (or east and west) at the same time..The TGV in France is a great example—but it takes a LOT of money.
One of the problems is that what the equilibrium should be, based on fundamentals (using oil to make energy) is always a guess. And another is that there is no theory or emprical knowledge about how long any adjustment process towards the guesstimated equilibrium should take.
In the wonderful world of economic theory, an infinite flood wise traders with lots of money on hand who correctly thought that the futures prices were too high would instantaneous make trades that brought the futures prices down. That is the assumption, and economists always wanting their equilibrium right now, always assume that flood has arrived.
But in the real world, this might take quite awhile to happen, especially if the minority opinion has to ask someone to lend them they money to do the equilibrating trades. Repeating a quote by Keynes a gave in a previous post: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”
LOL. I don’t know where it should have been each of those years, I’d have to find or run a spreadsheet. My impression, and it is only an impression, is that speculators have been adding a margin of 20% or so for years now, but in the last year that margin has spike.
The first decreatse will be based on demand due to economic contraction. the second decrease will be based on restructuring of the world economy to substitute away from oil and to reduce our energy footprint.
I figured it did. I think there’s only one or two lines that do that here for Amtrak, and they don’t get a lot out of the Accel lines. Mostly because they can’t exist here widely yet. Going to be some time before anyone thinks to pour any money into it to begin with. Attitudes are starting to change, but it’s still going to be slow going.
I’d still like an improvement in the number of regular passenger train lines too. But that takes yet more money too, like anything else. I’m just glad they’re still here, even if they aren’t as widely used as they used to be once upon a time.
in addition to the enron loophole there is also the “foreign” board of trade exemption (ICE loophole) where cftc exempts this exchange from regulation and even i think reporting trades. and then there is the swaps dealer loophole which means that investment banks like morgan stanley (which i’ve heard had cornered the market on heating oil in the NE usa) are treated as hedgers (”commercial interests”) and not speculators.
at least this is what i got from reading greenberger’s june 24 written statement.
Useful links, love that graph. Thanks wespgc. The graph suggests strongly that demand is being strangled, it also suggests contra the “speculation” argument, that fundamentals are driving the rise since 2005.
Within the next year, the TGV, mocked by some as a typically French, state-driven economic folly, over-hyped by others as the future of all inter-city transport, will come of age. New sections of high-speed line will open between central London and the Kent suburbs’ between Paris and Metz’ between Brussels and Amsterdam’ and between Brussels and the German border.
Related Results
Japan goes for comfort, ecology in new bullet train
Express France, British sleepers
The high-speed rail network for north-west Europe will become a reality. London will be two hours 20 minutes from Paris by train. Amsterdam to Paris will take three hours and five minutes. Paris to Cologne will be three hours, Paris to Frankfurt, four. There are already high-speed lines in Italy and Spain and lengthy new sections under construction in both countries.
If Morgan Stanley takes one side of the bet, other people are taking a bath taking the other sides of the bet. I’m not sure how much prices in other commodities are set by the futures market, this is an area where I’m discovering I’m vastly ignorant, though I’m trying to remedy that.
James Hamilton of econombrowser tried to calculate the suppy-demand situation based on fundamentals. He says mostly fundamentals. But the calcualtion is pretty crude and no confidence intervals or sensitivity analysis, so hard to say what it means:
http://www.econbrowser.com/arc.....contr.html
This guy says (link through Calculated Risk) says that part of the oil bubble will go away once the airlines start getting in real trouble - in short if airplanes get taken out of service it will have a huge effect on the market.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, I’m basing my guess on how long oil prices will take to collapse on how long it took last time. It happened overnight - but it didn’t happen till the late eighties. Structural changes take time to work through the economy - both on substitution away to other energy sources and on just using less. OTOH, that graph is very interesting, has major conservation begun, is there substitution?
This has been going on since 2004 so I would think that there are sufficient data points by now. Substitution presupposes elasticity but if this were true we would not be talking about our addiction to oil. At the same time, the EIA numbers suggest fluctuation in supply and demand in 2007 and early 2008 but the trajectory in prices was sharply and consistently up. In a rational market not dominated by excess speculation, I would expect the two to track together or at least correlate in some fashion.
My father (who has stock in several of these companies) talks to miners and mining company executives in Canada and they say that Chinese and Japanese sovereign funds are buying up more commodities contracts than they could ever use. That’s what tipped me off here.
Iraq, properly done, should be worth 1.5 million barrels, actually. Between Sadamn, sanctions and the bloody war it’s way below what it should be producing. Bush = can’t even find oil in Iraq.
Lock it in, pay a premium because you expect long term rises? Or are they trying to corner the market? Or are they fools who are going to take a beating if the market turns south?
Economist Jeff Frankel is the biggest proponent of money and interest rate policy affecting futures prices, and not only through speculation, but other mechanisms as well. His theory is conventional and requires futures to affect spot prices through inventory adjustment. Franke is a more consciencious economist than most, so he has been looking, and he found most recent worldwide inventory time series.