Perhaps 60% of oil price is speculation

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:And when that happens, do you believe that the demand for oil has gone up 16% in 48 hours?
No, but we are experiencing the true cost beginning to arise thanks to the exports decreasing or other issues on the word stage e.g. the Grangemouth shutdown or hits on pipelines in foreign exporter states.

Such rises in a short time are not sustained, since we saw the price break all records, then fall back about $15. However, as less and less oil along with lower EROEI crude comes to market, the price will go up to maintain the current supply contracts. It would be unfair to point to any single day increase and say it was all down to speculation or bad news producing a bearish report in the financial press. In the end, though, the price has been going up consistently since around 2005 (the year light sweet reached peak and all liquids hit a plateaux) and is now accelerating since the last quarter of 2007 because of net exports declining at an ever faster rate and news of expected capacity increases not coming on-stream soon, or at all, sinks in.
So why do you mock people for citing other factors due to their inability to model such short-term spikes, when your preferred factors do not model them either? This short-term spikiness is obviously a result of speculation; speculation creates volatility and we're seeing lots of volatility.

Very few people are arguing that there is no supply problem with oil at all; if your only argument in defense of imperiously dismissing the effect of speculation is to strawman other people's position thusly, we won't get anywhere.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Darth Wong wrote: So why do you mock people for citing other factors due to their inability to model such short-term spikes, when your preferred factors do not model them either? This short-term spikiness is obviously a result of speculation; speculation creates volatility and we're seeing lots of volatility.

Very few people are arguing that there is no supply problem with oil at all; if your only argument in defense of imperiously dismissing the effect of speculation is to strawman other people's position thusly, we won't get anywhere.
It's not that I'm dismissing speculative players being in the market, for it is obvious that is the case when you see double-digit increases in price that then fall back that far and remain so for a time. It's the magnitude of speculation that I find incredulous, because oil at $70 does not exist.

As they say, there is no shortage of $140 oil, but there is of $70.

EDIT: Sadly it's behind a paywall when I'm not at work, but this article if you can find it quoted for free via Google speaks more sense than these stories that blame only extreme and unsustainable speculation or currency flux.
User avatar
Jaepheth
Jedi Master
Posts: 1055
Joined: 2004-03-18 02:13am
Location: between epsilon and zero

Post by Jaepheth »

Speculation is unavoidable.

By the no arbitrage principle, if the price of a commodity some time in the future is A, then the current price is also A. That is to say, future prices determine current prices.

The entire market is so sure that the price of oil will be high in the future, that the price of oil is high now.
Children of the Ancients
I'm sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate the phone by 90 degrees and try again.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Jaepheth wrote:Speculation is unavoidable.

By the no arbitrage principle, if the price of a commodity some time in the future is A, then the current price is also A. That is to say, future prices determine current prices.

The entire market is so sure that the price of oil will be high in the future, that the price of oil is high now.
That doesn't mean the sheer amounts we're seeing are unavoidable. Especially when we're talking about giant hedge funds and pension funds pouring vast amounts of money in and out of market sectors based on computer trend models which create a massive herd mentality, with no regard for what effect these actions have on the larger economy or even the industry where these commodities are being traded.

EDIT: embarrassing typo
Last edited by Darth Wong on 2008-06-10 03:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Ender »

Jaepheth wrote:Speculation is unavoidable.

By the no arbitrage principle, if the price of a commodity some time in the future is A, then the current price is also A. That is to say, future prices determine current prices.

The entire market is so sure that the price of oil will be high in the future, that the price of oil is high now.
You can still use the trading threshold to prevent the massive shifts though. The more money you pump into a given market where there is a limited supply, the higher the equilibrium price will be.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
Lord Insanity
Padawan Learner
Posts: 434
Joined: 2006-02-28 10:00pm

Post by Lord Insanity »

From here a professor of economics at George Mason University, Walter E. Williams wrote in his opinion column:
Futures Markets

In searching for villains for rising food and oil prices, some commentators have turned to speculators, namely people trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and similar exchanges around the world. A sample of the claims: "Biofuels and droughts can't fully explain the recent food crisis — hedge funds and small investors bear some responsibility for global hunger." "The global food crisis is likely to persist if speculative investment by the corporate world is not reined in soon, warned a top expert responsible for reporting to the United Nations on human rights violations." "Financial speculators reap profits from global hunger."

Instead of condemning commodity speculation, we ought to recognize the vital function it serves. Let's look at it with a simplified example that captures the essence of speculation in commodity futures markets.

Say that today's price of corn is $6 a bushel. I have a hunch that because of future supply and demand conditions, such as drought, war and increased other uses for corn, that in May 2009 corn will sell for $12 a bushel. I stand to make a lot of money if I buy corn now for $6 a bushel, hold it, and in May 2009 sell it for $12 a bushel. Sure, I've made a bundle of money for myself but is my speculative activity deserving of condemnation? The answer is no; I've served a valuable social function.

Supposing my guess is correct about future supply and demand conditions and corn will be scarcer in the future, what is the socially wise thing to do now so that more will be available in the future? The answer is to use less corn now. How do you get people to voluntarily use less corn now? If you said, "Let the price rise," go to the head of the class.
That is exactly what happens as other speculators and I buy corn now. Today's price of corn will be bided up. The result is people will use less corn now and more corn will be available in May 2009 than would be the case if the current price of corn remained at $6. The valuable function of futures markets is that of allocating goods over time. It is wise to take the future into account in decisions that one makes today.

The futures market is no bed of roses. My guess could be wrong. There could be a bumper crop of corn and its May 2009 price might be $3 a bushel. I'd have to sell corn that I bought today for $6 a bushel for $3 in May 2009 and suffer a big loss.

We all are speculators to one degree or another. Last August, my home heating oil company offered its customers a deal. I purchased 900 gallons of oil for a spot price of $2.64 a gallon. I made the purchase with the expectation that oil prices would rise over the winter months. The previous year, I purchased 900 gallons and lost because heating oil fell from the spot price at which it was purchased. Another example is when you expect gasoline prices to be higher next week; you fill up you tank this week.

The futures market, which takes into account both the present and the future availability of goods, is a vital part of a smoothly functioning economy. Unfortunately, that fact provides little comfort to people frustrated over the high prices of food and fuel. As such, it provides fodder for political demagogues, charlatans and quacks who rush in with blame and prepare "solutions" for the problems they themselves have created — the high prices for food and fuel are directly linked to the policies of the White House and Congress.
Of course the last sentence and his subsequent article here kind of missed the real problem. Obviously drilling in the areas currently off limits amounts to a fart in a hurricane.
-Lord Insanity

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -The Real Willy Wonka
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Say that today's price of corn is $6 a bushel. I have a hunch that because of future supply and demand conditions, such as drought, war and increased other uses for corn, that in May 2009 corn will sell for $12 a bushel. I stand to make a lot of money if I buy corn now for $6 a bushel, hold it, and in May 2009 sell it for $12 a bushel. Sure, I've made a bundle of money for myself but is my speculative activity deserving of condemnation? The answer is no; I've served a valuable social function.

Supposing my guess is correct about future supply and demand conditions and corn will be scarcer in the future, what is the socially wise thing to do now so that more will be available in the future? The answer is to use less corn now. How do you get people to voluntarily use less corn now? If you said, "Let the price rise," go to the head of the class.

That is exactly what happens as other speculators and I buy corn now. Today's price of corn will be bided up. The result is people will use less corn now and more corn will be available in May 2009 than would be the case if the current price of corn remained at $6. The valuable function of futures markets is that of allocating goods over time. It is wise to take the future into account in decisions that one makes today.
And in this hypothetical scenario, what happens if the speculators pour so much money into this bet that the price rises to $20 a bushel, and other traders who know absolutely nothing about corn buy into it as well based on computer models and trend watching, thus making it shoot up to $40 a bushel?
The futures market is no bed of roses. My guess could be wrong. There could be a bumper crop of corn and its May 2009 price might be $3 a bushel. I'd have to sell corn that I bought today for $6 a bushel for $3 in May 2009 and suffer a big loss.

We all are speculators to one degree or another. Last August, my home heating oil company offered its customers a deal. I purchased 900 gallons of oil for a spot price of $2.64 a gallon. I made the purchase with the expectation that oil prices would rise over the winter months. The previous year, I purchased 900 gallons and lost because heating oil fell from the spot price at which it was purchased. Another example is when you expect gasoline prices to be higher next week; you fill up you tank this week.
It seems to me that a lot of people just ignore the concept of proportionality when they try to defend the rampant speculation.
The futures market, which takes into account both the present and the future availability of goods, is a vital part of a smoothly functioning economy.
A liver is a vital part of my body too, but if it's enlarged to twice its normal size, maybe I should go to a doctor.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Post by Sikon »

A recent CNN article:
In a normal oil market, the cost of producing the last, most expensive barrel of oil needed to satisfy worldwide demand sets the price for every barrel the world over. Other auction commodity markets work much the same way.

So even if Saudi Arabia produces at $4 a barrel, if the final, multi-millionth barrel required to heat houses and run cars costs $50, and is produced, for argument's sake, at a flagging field in West Texas, the world price is $50. That's what economists call the equilibrium price: It's where the price that customers are willing to pay meets the production cost, including a cushion, naturally, for profit or "the cost of capital."

But today, the sudden surge in demand and the production bottlenecks have thrown the market radically out of balance.[...]

A big swath of the market isn't really paying that $125 a barrel number you hear about seemingly every hour. In China, India and the Middle East, governments are heavily subsidizing oil for their consumers and corporations, leading to rampant over-consumption - and driving up prices even more. [...]

So what does that barrel cost today? According to Stephen Brown, an economist at the Dallas Federal Reserve, that final barrel costs just $50 to produce.
When supply lags behind increase in desired demand, there isn't as much production as everyone wants. Prices get really high as consumers bid for the limited amount available, and it is possible for an oil-exporting nation or company to sell oil for vastly greater than the cost of production, getting record profits in the process.

------------

Within this context, there would be the effect of speculation and other such economic factors on causing oil price rise to accelerate.
For a few weeks now, observers have noticed that Iran is leasing tankers and storing oil in them. At about $140,000 a week or so, that is expensive storage.[...]

"It is not just Iran. Today we started checking on how many tankers Iran had, and soon discovered that there is a serious tanker shortage. Lease prices have soared in the past few weeks. It is clear there are a lot of speculators betting that oil is going to rise to $150 or so and are willing to pay very high prices for keeping the oil on the seas waiting for higher prices. It is a speculative boom."

He then told me about flying into New York in the early '80s. Outside the harbor were 30 or so tankers just sitting, waiting for prices to continue to increase as they had been doing for some time. When they did not, they all tried to get into the harbor at the same time, and of course they couldn't.
From here.

For example, with the recent rate of oil prices rise, waiting even days to weeks to sell oil can mean getting a number of dollars more per barrel than if selling it at once. The effect of intentionally limiting oil sales in the near-term would be to push prices higher.

The recent gain from investment and speculation with oil is enormous. For most investments, like the average stock, a few percent increase per year is good, yet, in the case of oil, the selling price value increased by tens of percent in a matter of months, and that attracts a lot of interest.

Index speculators have gone from investing $13+ billion in 2003 to $260+ billion in commodities at the end of March of this year.

------------

Enormous rise in oil prices has been occurring even while the total supply of oil and oil-equivalents has been slightly going up on a quarterly basis. It was on average 87.2 million barrels per day in the first quarter of 2008, compared to 86.5 mbd/day in the last quarter of 2007, although it goes up and down from month to month such as more recently 86.6 mbd/day in May versus 86.8 mbd/day in April.

Image

Overall, 2007 production was 85.6 mbd/day compared to 83.4 mbd/day in 2004.

One major factor in oil price rise can be when such a slow growth in production does not meet the increase rate in desired demand, including from rapidly-growing economies like China. Demand is relatively inelastic, making small change in supply versus desired demand cause a large change in price, since it takes many percent increase in price to reduce the average consumer's consumption by 1% ... or, in some cases, even to just slightly slow growth in the consumption of some consumers.

The overall change in production has followed the trend that has been occurring for a number of years, in which some segments of the conventional crude supply decline while production from some other sources increases.

Image

For example, natural gas to liquids (NGL) production has gone up, e.g. "OPEC condensate and gas liquids supply, not included in non-OPEC totals, reaches 5.2 mb/d this year, up [by 8%] from 4.8 mb/d in 2007" (IEA, May 2008).

Of course, increasing production of oil-equivalents such as coal-to-liquids (CTL), NGLs, biofuels, etc. can have a greater effect on the price of gasoline than a weaker and more indirect effect on the price of crude oil itself.

Indeed, such is one of the contributing factors to why the ~ 150% (~ $1.60/gallon -> $4.04/gallon) in U.S. gasoline prices between 2004 and now has been so much less than the ~ 370% rise in the crude oil prices (~ $30/barrel -> $140/barrel) over the same time period. (Other factors include a base expense of up to several tens of cents per gallon of average taxes in the U.S., plus the cost of converting oil to gasoline at refineries ... beyond the price of the inputs alone).

It seems strange to talk about 150% price rise in gasoline as less, but that is relative to the 370% price rise in crude oil itself. Increasing production of alternative fuel is one factor helping motor fuel costs be influenced by more than crude oil prices alone, but the limited rate of production increase hasn't been enough to prevent price rise.

------------

Some major factors leading to the increase in the price of oil are:
  • Historical slow net increase in the total production of oil and oil-equivalents is less than the increase rate of desired demand, including rapidly growing economies such as China. Although alternative fuel and unconventional production is increasing, production is meanwhile declining from some segments of the conventional crude supply.
  • The value of the dollar has greatly declined, contributing to further increasing the cost of oil measured in U.S. dollars; for example, in 2002, it took $0.94 to buy 1 euro of goods, but now it takes $1.55.
  • The enormous financial incentive for speculation and for limiting the near-term supply of oil to make more profit selling it later at higher prices is another contribution.
Naturally, such factors are not mutually exclusive but have a combined effect greater than any single one alone.
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Apologies, Nit. I missed this.
SirNitram wrote: Oh, I agree there, and therefore am a bit of an idiot. I do have to ask two questions:

1) What's 'dma' stand for?
Day Moving Average.
2) How does the collapsing dollar affect your calculations? I've seen it taken as a matter of faith that a falling dollar spike the price(Makes sense; the printing press introduces more money to the market same way as the commodity spike did), but do you have any solid guesses?
We can see that the price is going up in a basket of currencies. Simply put, the price of oil has doubled in the last year. The dollar certainly hasn't halved in buying power. You'd really know about it if it did. I did have a link to a chart showing the average spot price versus trade rate of the dollar, so when I can find the damn thing again, I'll show you that recently the dollar and oil have been quite stable together.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Apologies, Nit. I missed this.
SirNitram wrote: Oh, I agree there, and therefore am a bit of an idiot. I do have to ask two questions:

1) What's 'dma' stand for?
Day Moving Average.
2) How does the collapsing dollar affect your calculations? I've seen it taken as a matter of faith that a falling dollar spike the price(Makes sense; the printing press introduces more money to the market same way as the commodity spike did), but do you have any solid guesses?
We can see that the price is going up in a basket of currencies. Simply put, the price of oil has doubled in the last year. The dollar certainly hasn't halved in buying power. You'd really know about it if it did. I did have a link to a chart showing the average spot price versus trade rate of the dollar, so when I can find the damn thing again, I'll show you that recently the dollar and oil have been quite stable together.
Alright. Like I said, I've been seeing it taken on faith, so I was skeptical to start with. There's alot of folks running around declaring a X% drop in the dollar will simply produce a Y% spike in Oil and trying to justify this away.

Sikon: 13B to 260B? That's a 20-fold increase. I realized that there was a massive spike, but that amount I wasn't prepared for. I seriously underestimated how the printing press had just poured cash into finite resources, and I can't imagine there were many twentyfold or even fivefold increases in commodity output to match.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

It seems like speculation is causing the major local volatility, while peak oil is causing the major global increase in prices. That said, I did notice some falsehoods in the article:
As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.
Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.
Inventories are actually a little below average and declining slowly, while oil supplies have remained roughly steady for the past five or so years.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

SirNitram wrote:Sikon: 13B to 260B? That's a 20-fold increase. I realized that there was a massive spike, but that amount I wasn't prepared for.
And it mysteriously comes after a commodities trading deregulation bill passed by the Republican Congress during in Bush's first term. Pure coincidence, of course.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Lord Insanity
Padawan Learner
Posts: 434
Joined: 2006-02-28 10:00pm

Post by Lord Insanity »

Darth Wong wrote: And in this hypothetical scenario, what happens if the speculators pour so much money into this bet that the price rises to $20 a bushel, and other traders who know absolutely nothing about corn buy into it as well based on computer models and trend watching, thus making it shoot up to $40 a bushel?
In the short run the consumer gets screwed. In the long run the speculators get hosed when they have to sell at the actual market price people are willing to pay. As it relates to oil, if the OP is credible and 60% of the price really is inflated purely by speculation then a lot of speculators are going to get royally screwed. Judging by various other posts in this tread that is not what is going on at anywhere near the magnitude being suggested by the OP.
-Lord Insanity

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -The Real Willy Wonka
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

SirNitram wrote:
Alright. Like I said, I've been seeing it taken on faith, so I was skeptical to start with. There's alot of folks running around declaring a X% drop in the dollar will simply produce a Y% spike in Oil and trying to justify this away.
The dollar decline does add to the woes, since the US is paying more than the rest of the world and has a suffering industry to add in to that problem. The benefit is that exports should be stronger, and so the US can keep its head above the water by being competitive abroad as their prices hit rock bottom (indeed, the number of foreign investors buying up US assets has been high in recent years given the FOREX reserves they own in US denominated currency like T-bills are becoming steadily worthless).

Like I said with speculators, the price of oil is only partly affected in this way and cannot explain the overall increase in entirety. This, as Sikon explains, during a time of increased production from alternative energy sources. You can well imagine what will happen when the plateaux ends and the downturn begins if we've had this price shift when liquid production was on the up (even if net energy may have been decreasing).
Sikon: 13B to 260B? That's a 20-fold increase. I realized that there was a massive spike, but that amount I wasn't prepared for. I seriously underestimated how the printing press had just poured cash into finite resources, and I can't imagine there were many twentyfold or even fivefold increases in commodity output to match.
Commodities are big business again. Forget dotcoms and services, this is where the big money is heading.

Image

Image

This boom is coming after decades of neglect for the resources that fuel our lives. You cannot build a nation on lattes or fast IT troubleshooting, but you can be quite confident that we'll always need food, water and energy to go with building materials and other necessities.

Still, even though there are big players in the energy market, the CFTC released a report recently showing that a massive surge in oil speculator numbers is without truth. Even if there was some huge trend towards people playing oil that way, there would need to be someone taking delivery of those contracts and hoarding for the price to rise this much in such a short time. Given global inventories are static or falling, this is evidently not the case. Additionally, there are limits to trading contracts that stop any shifts that could seriously harm market conditions should the crowds decide that one such commodity was worth throwing all their liquid capital into at any one time.

Position Accountability Levels and Limits

NYMEX Crude Oil Futures - 1,000 U.S. barrels (42,000 gallons): Any one month/all months: 20,000 net futures, but not to exceed 3,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot month.

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas Futures - 10,000 million British thermal units (mmBtu): Any one month/all months: 12,000 net futures, but not to exceed 1,000 in the last three days of trading in the spot month.

NYNEX Heating Oil Futures - 42,000 U.S. gallons (1,000 barrels): 7,000 contracts for all months combined, but not to exceed 1,000 in the last three days of trading in the spot month.

Exemptions
The Commission and exchanges grant exemptions to their position limits for bona fide hedging, as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.3(z), 17 CFR 1.3(z). A hedge is a derivative transaction or position that represents a substitute for transactions or positions to be taken at a later time in a physical marketing channel. (Source JPMorgan Chase)
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Lord Insanity wrote:In the short run the consumer gets screwed. In the long run the speculators get hosed when they have to sell at the actual market price people are willing to pay. As it relates to oil, if the OP is credible and 60% of the price really is inflated purely by speculation then a lot of speculators are going to get royally screwed. Judging by various other posts in this tread that is not what is going on at anywhere near the magnitude being suggested by the OP.
I don't think anyone is seriously defending the 60% number, since nobody knows how he derived it. But it seems fair to think that a combination of supply shortfalls and excessive speculation are driving up the price.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Vlad, no one is pegging speculators or the dollar as the sole cause here. But there's no reason not to try and see all the factors hitting the price of oil, where speculation, falling dollar, production declines, infrastructure reaching capacity, not to mention the futures market constantly punting their supply forward: 'Oh, It's time to take possession? We just do trading oil. Okay.. Hey, buddy! Buy this contract, it'll be great.'
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

SirNitram wrote:Vlad, no one is pegging speculators or the dollar as the sole cause here. But there's no reason not to try and see all the factors hitting the price of oil, where speculation, falling dollar, production declines, infrastructure reaching capacity, not to mention the futures market constantly punting their supply forward: 'Oh, It's time to take possession? We just do trading oil. Okay.. Hey, buddy! Buy this contract, it'll be great.'
Never said you or anyone else were, I just feel it's good to show where these MSM articles go wrong in their analysis. Given only a handful of papers around the world even acknowledge peak oil as a problem, rather than talk of "peak oil survivalists" as some do, it's important to not lull others into a false sense of security in assuming once the government reigns in speculators, we'll all be driving with $1 gas in our tanks.

If anything, a price shock now might help us, provided the authorities grasp the underlying causes, which clearly they don't in the US and UK to name two states.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

The first shockwaves of oil hitting now, as an economy slump causes investors to look elsewhere, is pretty much the ideal situation. Sure, the government of the US is closing it's ears and the UK isn't admitting the problem, but it will hopefully drive money to develop ways to reduce energy usage, find new ways of generation, and in the meantime, get people adjusted to no cheap gas.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Alan Bolte
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2611
Joined: 2002-07-05 12:17am
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by Alan Bolte »

Here is part of an article that I felt provided some insight into the speculation question. I'm certainly no expert, but it makes some sense. There's a lot more to the article, but this bit is most relevant.
I have been pondering for a few weeks about whether the long-only commodity index funds are really affecting the markets. Basically, these funds have become a huge part of the commodities market. It is clear that enough buying and in size will affect any market, but these funds do not take delivery. They "roll" their exposure as they get close to expiration, so they are not involved in the spot price. In theory, the spot price should be a function of immediate supply and demand.

But, it is not that simple, as Louis Gave reminded me. Looking at recent CFTC data, investors known as "commercials" were long 827 million barrels of oil. In the early part of the decade it was 3-400 million barrels. Commercials are supposed to be those who are hedging their production of oil. But large oil companies rarely hedge, and smaller producers only hedge a portion of their oil (see more below). Has supply increased over 100%? I think not.

Where is the increase in commercial interest coming from? The clear answer is long-only commodity index funds and ETFs. They simply buy baskets of commodities at whatever the price is, speculating on the rise in the price of the overall commodity market. It is a one-way trade. Jim Rogers is probably the most famous exponent of such trades, but there are scores of funds which mimic what he does. But there are limits to how much exposure speculators can buy, because the CFTC will allow a speculator to only buy so much of any given market, to keep large players from getting a corner on the market and driving up prices, a la the Hunt brothers and silver in 1980. These limits are known as "position limits."

There are no position limits for commercials who are hedging. They are in theory hedging their physical exposure to a given commodity they are selling or buying. Think of a farmer and General Mills. Both want to lock in the price of wheat so they can plan for the future. Speculators are useful in that they provide liquidity to the markets. In fact, they are essential to a properly functioning market.

The CFTC created a loophole when they allowed investment banks to be classified as commercial investors. So, when a long-only commodity index fund wants to buy a million barrels of oil, they can go to the investment bank, who will sell them a "swap" on the price of oil, and then immediately hedge their exposure in the futures market.

To be sure, the long-only index fund can now create positions far in excess of the position limits that are enforced upon normal speculators. These funds can grow to be huge - multi-tens of billions of dollars. Even though they are speculators, they are not included in the data as speculators. Because they get their exposure from an investment bank, they are ultimately listed as a commercial. In total, they represent an enormous part of the commodities markets. But they are providing liquidity, so what's the problem? They are not actually hoarding the commodities. The price is still set at the spot price. But.

But that is not the whole story. They are making it difficult, if not dangerous, to short the market. When massive buying comes into the market, it moves the market and sends the signal to the market that prices are rising. Momentum players move in, and prices rise some more.

In fact, as the price of oil has risen from $90 to $100 and higher, normal speculative open interest has declined, as who can afford to fight the tape? At the least, I expect the CFTC to require those "commercials" that are really long-only index funds to provide transparency. Politicians are demanding that something be done. It is entirely possible that they will impose position limits on the long-only funds. As I said last week, when the elephants are dancing, the mice should leave the floor. And Congress and the regulators are very serious elephants indeed. Let's hope they do whatever they are going to do quickly.
In short, with all that buying going on in the market, real commercials assume demand and prices are only going up, and based on that assumption the price rises more than the fundamentals require. It's more or less a big speculative bubble on top of fundamentals that would make the price rise a lot anyway. What percentage is speculation is a good question. I say more or less because it the method used doesn't look at all like speculation to many experienced investors, because it's being done on a broad, index basis across all commodities, and is generally being done in the belief that commodities won't fall as much as everything else, rather than in the belief that commodities are going to the moon. The end result could still be massive demand destruction (poverty and death) leading to a decline in prices. Congress putting limits on speculation could also bring a decline.
Any job worth doing with a laser is worth doing with many, many lasers. -Khrima
There's just no arguing with some people once they've made their minds up about something, and I accept that. That's why I kill them. -Othar
Avatar credit
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

There has already been demand destruction, just it's not in many of the big consumer states and demand is falling nowhere near the rate supply is. If supply problems accelerate, as they may well do, then demand destruction - analogous to killing your economy in the end - will need to pick up the pace.
User avatar
tim31
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2006-10-18 03:32am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Post by tim31 »

Admiral Valdemar wrote: If anything, a price shock now might help us, provided the authorities grasp the underlying causes, which clearly they don't in the US and UK to name two states.
I don't think they're really taking it seriously here; the Prime Minister's just poured money into the local Toyota branch to develop a hybrid Camry so people can drive largish cars for less consumption. I'm looking forward to seeing what prices Toyota want for these cars that the Australian Federal Government has tipped $35 million* into developing.




*Yeah, I'm aware that that's small change compared to the development costs of many popular models, but this is for a company that has already developed a hybrid drivetrain for a smaller scale, and an existing, very popular chassis.
lol, opsec doesn't apply to fanfiction. -Aaron

PRFYNAFBTFC
CAPTAIN OF MFS SAMMY HAGAR
ImageImage
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

It's pretty sad, the way people think that improved energy efficiency should be used to permit more extravagant behaviour with the same amount of energy, rather than actually reducing energy use.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

SirNitram wrote:The first shockwaves of oil hitting now, as an economy slump causes investors to look elsewhere, is pretty much the ideal situation. Sure, the government of the US is closing it's ears and the UK isn't admitting the problem, but it will hopefully drive money to develop ways to reduce energy usage, find new ways of generation, and in the meantime, get people adjusted to no cheap gas.
I don't think it is wise to wait for governments to act.

Those who best survive a crisis are those who can help themselves. Sure, great if governments make some real, positive changes. However, there is nothing that prevents the typical person (consumer) from making his/her own changes. What are the basics of survival these days? Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, fuel. If you grow some of your own food, cook more from scratch, buy less expensive clothes, or fewer but high quality/long lasting clothes, insulate your home, change out inefficient lightbulbs and appliances for more efficient ones, downsize your vehicle, and plan trips better to conserve fuel you will be in a much better position than those who make no changes and wait for the government to instruct them.

In other words, don't wait for the world to change or someone to save you - YOU make changes now.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Broomstick wrote:
SirNitram wrote:The first shockwaves of oil hitting now, as an economy slump causes investors to look elsewhere, is pretty much the ideal situation. Sure, the government of the US is closing it's ears and the UK isn't admitting the problem, but it will hopefully drive money to develop ways to reduce energy usage, find new ways of generation, and in the meantime, get people adjusted to no cheap gas.
I don't think it is wise to wait for governments to act.
If it appears I advocated such waiting, I apologize; it was far from what I intended.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

*sigh* not again. If speculators are responsible for a large rise in oil prices, we'd expect to see a large increase in the net number of "long" positions in the contracts held by traders. In other words, lots more people bidding up the price of oil than shorting it down.

Where can we find this information? From the CFTC commitment of traders summary, specifically, the non-commercial traders column for light sweet crude on NYMEX. The net number of long contracts do not correspond with spikes in oil prices, for instance in January when prices were falling back to the 90's and high 80's after breaking $100, there were around 70,000-100,000 net long posistions held by non-commercial traders, in other words, hedge funds and other speculators. During the end of May and early June when oil was doing its moonshot and seting record highs, there were only 20,000-25,000 net long positions held by those same traders.

In short, speculators, schmeculators. It's baloney.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
Post Reply