http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/816965/29753630
8:53 PM, June 3, 2008
The commodity bull market seemed to be under attack from all sides Tuesday, triggering a broad retreat in prices.
But considering the big guns aimed at the market, the losses were fairly modest. The Reuters/CRB index of 19 commodities fell 1.4%. Oil was one of the more serious casualties, off 2.7% to $124.31 a barrel in futures trading.
Under political pressure to corral investors and speculators who have been accused of helping to drive prices of grain (among other commodities) to record highs, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced that it would require certain investors to disclose more information about their holdings in ag markets.
"We want to encourage access to markets, but we want to be sure too much money isn’t distorting markets artificially," acting CFTC Chairman Walter Lukken told reporters in a conference call. More on the CFTC’s announcement here.
Still ongoing: the agency’s six-month-old probe of oil-futures trading, which was just publicly disclosed last week.
Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing Tuesday on possible energy-market manipulation. Investment legend George Soros, head of Soros Fund Management, was called as a witness because of his "life-long study of bubbles" (his words).
His conclusion about the oil market: Fundamental demand is driving prices, but institutional investors in commodities (such as pension funds) "reinforce the upward pressure on prices."
Said Soros: "I find commodity index buying eerily reminiscent of a similar craze for ‘portfolio insurance’ which led to the stock market crash of 1987. In both cases institutions are piling in on one side of the market and they have sufficent weight to unbalance it."
Nonetheless, he said he wasn’t predicting an "imminent" crash in oil prices.
Finally, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke helped undermine commodity markets by appearing to draw a line in the sand on the dollar’s long slide. I explain here, but in a nutshell, a weaker dollar would help boost commodity prices, while a stronger buck would be a drag on prices.
Photo: George Soros before the Senate. Stefan Zaklin/EPA
Speculation is an integral part of the price discovery function of futures markets, without it there can be no liquidity and consumers would be worse off without these markets.
It is the nature of free markets to experience distortions from time to time due to under supply, over demand and, yes, excessive speculation...but they rarely last for prolonged periods, particularly with storable commodities.
There is nothing to prevent anyone from utilizing futures markets by hedging against their own price risks. A 1,000 barrel (42,000 gal) oil contract for delivery in every month of the year for 10 years hence can be bought for about $5,000.
Soros grinds a sharp ax. Given his track record vs Paulson, Bernanke, Greenspan ( Larry, Moe & Curly)or any investment house you can name I'd be inclined to listen to him. If you really don't like what he has to say I'd listen again & implement his advice immediately. If you like what he has to say, then keep on doing what you're doing.
martin, You hit the nail on the head & missed it. The problem with commodities markets (along with many others) is the no-load ease with which these contracts can be purchased. If These contractual obligations were underwritten with standards equal to a common mortgage most of the speculative players would be eliminated from the market. After that we'd see a more realistic pricing structure based on real fundamentals, not Wall St. invent-a-set of books accounting.
"Speculation is an integral part of the price discovery function of futures markets, without it there can be no liquidity and consumers would be worse off without these markets."
Prove this please.
Mike Snyder:
With due respect, I think you are confused. Speculation is NOT a bad word in futures trading. I said it is an integral part of the process..it is as essential as a 'fundamental' hedger, a buyer of commodities needed in his business or a producer of a commodity who sells his product for gain, to protect financing, etc. Lacking the congruent meeting of these two "fundamental" market participants, there is no transaction, no price indication and under these circumstances the ultimate consumer, not knowing value, will most likely suffer. The speculator, the risk taker, facilitates the transaction by stepping in the market and makes the trade, on either side. The liquidity the speculator affords is thus ESSENTIAL to a process that does, in fact, benefit the ultimate consumer.
Regarding your reference to "standards equal to a common mortgage". Firstly, standards of a common mortgage (what IS a common mtg?) vis-a-vis standards of a futures contract, aside from interest rates, have no common relevancy. Are you suggesting that a 25% LTV, for example, should be applicable to a futures contract? Knowing that the speculation role is a requirement for fluid mkts, the low margins called for in trading futures makes this possible....that is the whole point of attracting the speculator. You may think this feature of futures mkts is somehow advantageous to Wall Street traders, i.e., someone other than you...but nothing precludes you from trading, utilizing the same low margins and...here's the point...suffering the same losses as a result of poor decisions, adverse mkts, acts of God, etc.
As to trading on "fundamentals" vs technical, charting or crystal balls...what exactly do you mean by fundamentals..and why does it matter? I'm a chartist, I don't care if I'm looking at a wheat chart, 3 mo LIBOR ($361 TRILLION in loans and mtgs tied to LIBOR rates), the S&P, GM or dried blood...my objective, as is the fundamentalists, is to make money. One of the most "fundamental" companies in the most fundamental of industries, GM, just owned up to the fact that notwithstanding the best fundamental marketing research in the world, they missed the boat on SUVs, and trucks rather than economy vehicles. I could have made a GM chart with a pencil and a piece of paper and told you the same thing.
martin, My point may have not been articulated well, but what I'm looking for is some skin in the game relative to the dollar amount being manipulated. I'm a pretty smart guy & I've never seen commodities futures as anything but inflationary. They may support those trading in the market, but they contribute nothing to the quantity, quality or efficacy of any of the goods traded. All that actually moves are mouse clicks and wallah! The cost of a commodity vital to the world's economy shifts significantly on a rumor, prediction or fear of scarcity next summer. The collapse of the Carlyle Fund demonstrated in real time how quickly top management will fold a corporate shell and leave their investors dangling in the wind when they've made a bad bet. Hence the desire to "cool" the volatility of not only the commodities markets but the slew of "derivatives" being traded kike CDSs that have crippled the municipal bond market. Requiring an appropriate level of capitalization would be much like a cover charge at the club door & keep much of the speculative riff-raff out.
Mike Snyder:
Your comprehension of futures mkts should be as good as your articulation!
Seriously, if you fail to grasp the role of speculators (riff-raff) and leverage in futures trading I fear whatever I say, however positive it may be, will go for naught. Regarding having more skin in the game...increasing margins...with the intent of smoothing trading ranges, decreasing volatility, begs the question of how much margin would you suggest...and why? Equity mkts have stringent margin, at least 10 X those of futures, and volatility is as much a part of their trading scenarios at times of uncertainty and every bit as perilous as futures. There would be little difference, other than cumbersome multiple transactions, were 100% of the value of a contract on deposit at an exchange...only the financing of the purchase/sale would be at a different venue.
Futures mkts have functioned well, without computer clicks, since the mid-19th century and auction equity mkts since the 18th century. And, yes, rumors, fear of scarcity, wars, weather, etc affect prices, sometimes rapidly and whipsawing within minutes or hours...when has it been otherwise? There were no computer clicks in the Gold Rush of 1849 or the crash of 1927.
As to mkts contributing nothing of value to the actual commodity...that is simply not true. Contract standards and specifications are stringent regarding the quality and quantities of the traded commodity. Regarding mkts adding efficacy to the commodity, aside from the commodity meeting the exchanges high standards, copper of a certain grade is what it is..as is wheat, a T-Note, a stock index or whatever.
Your contention of mkts only being inflationary is also not true. There have been many severe, extended bear markets in most every commodity ever traded.. exacerbated by futures mkts as much on the downside as on the upside. As a matter of fact, these normally occur quicker and steeper than bull mkts because the public is simply not attuned to selling something they don't own and they tend to panic sell in a crisis. A 50% decrease in the price of a 16 oz pack of linguini doesn't get much notice from American households...while the durum wheat grower that made the grain that made the flour that made the pasta, may be financially ruined.
The Carlyle deal wasn't a direct result of futures mkts...but even if it were..investors are all 3 X 7 and were all amply made aware of the risks of futures and derivative trading. Who is to say someone can't do what they wish with their money? Las Vegas wasn't built on safety and guaranteed ROIs, yet millions of people flock there and lose billions of dollars, for no apparent positive economic benefit to society...other than that generated by a regional mega industry.
Mike, I've got to run...I need to short some July oats.
No comments:
Post a Comment