Investors causing hunger among the worlds poor.

Creating excuses for being ineffective increasing the supply has no bearing on the actual price of oil.

Saying that these people pump "large sums" into future stocks doesn't mean much, and is an excuse, not a reason.

Again,

It doesn't matter how much I bet that the future prices will be high, if I am wrong I simply lose. You are not buying the actual commodity you are betting on future prices. It is all cash purchases.
 


March 19, 2008, 12:30 pm
Commodity prices (wonkish)

Jeff Frankel has been arguing for some time, most recently in a new blog post, that low real interest rates are driving up commodity prices. Others argue that we’re witnessing a commodity bubble. These are, of course, not mutually exclusive — we could have a situation in which low rates started the upward movement, and investors, extrapolating, magnified the rise beyond what the low rates themselves can justify.

But I’m still puzzled about the inventory issue.

Below is my version of the standard picture of how speculation can drive up commodity prices. I show supply and demand in two periods, now and later. If the commodity in question was something like ice cream, which can’t be stored, the price in each period is determined by supply and demand in that period. If the commodity can be stored, however, people expecting a price rise can take some amount — “Inv” in the picture — off today’s market, driving up the price now, in the expectation that they can sell it at a higher price later.

This sort of speculation could be driven by news that raises expected future prices: if, say, the White House fires an admiral known to oppose bombing Iran, that might raise expected future oil prices and hence drive up prices now. It can also, as Jeff points out, be affected by interest rates: low rates make the idea of storing stuff to wait for a higher price more attractive.

But here’s the question: all of this involves keeping stuff off the market and storing it. So where is the surge in inventories?

I haven’t been systematic about this, but a casual survey of inventory stories for things like wheat and copper suggests that inventories are not bulging — if anything, they’re kind of low.

OK, as Jeff points out, extracted products like oil and presumably copper can be in effect placed in inventories by simply leaving the stuff in the ground. Still, the absence of an inventory bulge kind of makes me wonder whether either the interest rate or the bubble story works.

I don’t have a firm view here. I just want to know how I’m supposed to resolve this puzzle.

chart here:

commodity_bubble.png


from the link at :
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/commodity-prices-wonkish/

Now if Krugman can't figure it out, but you guys can ....
 
The low interest rates would drive up prices of commodities because the commodities have a specific value and inflation creates an increase in price.

It is why you buy gold when interest rates are low to hold the value of your investments otherwise you can lose while "winning" due to inflation. And the reason I told people that I would be buying commodities at a higher percentage to hold the value of my investment.
 
And if the futures go up the sellers know they can get that for the commodity.

I guess oil speculation does not drive up the price of oil either ?

The FUTURES go up because people expect the demand to increase faster than supply as compared to the supply/demand equation today.

Oil speculation is the same. People buy the oil based on supply/demand assumptions being made. If they feel that worldwide demand is going to spike, the price of oil will likewise spike. The longer the term of the futures contract, the more speculation will be built in. But the SPOT price is what people are willing to pay today for that brl of oil.

Bottom line is this.... investors are not driving up commodity prices to where people can't afford food etc. Supply and demand issues are driving those prices.
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2006

Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Levin-Coleman Report Finds Speculation Adding To Oil Prices: Put the Cop Back on the Beat

WASHINGTON – Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Ranking Minority Member and Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, today released a Subcommittee staff report
 
To illustrate the inflow of money into commodity trades, but he did not explain how it works and why it leads by itself into price increase. This could be obvious for some people but I feel that I need to explain, just in case.

There is a fundamental difference between stock market and commodity market. You can buy and hold any stock as long as the company exists (when company goes belly up you can say the stock “expired”).

In opposite, at the commodity market everything expires and is temporary. There are two markets - spot and futures. At spot market you buy for quick delivery of physical, at futures market you buy the contract for future delivery. Every single physical is traded at the market either for immediate or future delivery and every future contract is eventually replaced by physical delivery.

When the “investment” money come to markets they either buy at spot (unlikely) or buy futures (more likely), because why would they stockpile physical if they don’t really need it? If they buy futures they need to roll-over those futures every month to avoid the delivery of physical. If the amount of “investment” money at the market is constant they just re-invest into new futures at every expiration and that does not affect prices.

However, it the amount of “investment” money is growing, the amount of futures sold at every expiration is replaced by increased amount of new futures, i.e. the demand for futures is fundamentally increasing. But that’s not all.

The final consumers of every commodity are expecting the futures to trade at discount to current spot price, because the commodity seller is getting his money early, which is effectively a credit. The discount of futures to current spot price is normal and is just the cost of money. However, if new “investors” are interfering with prices that could elevate the price of futures comparing to spot. The reaction of final consumers is simple: they will buy less futures and buy more physical. When they buy more physical then they really need the inventory grow and prices go up.

Thus, the inflow of “investment” money into commodities markets automatically lead into price increases. There is no other way, this is just simple math. The inventory build-up is not so transparent as it could, because the producers of intermediate goods may take more crude goods than they really need and produce more output. It might be cheaper to stockpile processed goods, they probably take less space and are less perishable. But the producers of final goods may also expect the prices to increase and produce more of final goods than the market demands. So the stockpiling of products may happen at all levels and in different countries, so it is impossible to properly track and quantify those excesses.

Russ Winter chart shows the constant inflow of funds “invested” into commodities. I take “investment” into quotes because of the fundamental difference. While at stock markets investment means ownership of something permanent, at commodities markets “investment” means some traders are stuck with futures between producers and consumers. Every month, those traders transfer this temporary ownership to consumers and buy more from producers, which leads into price increase and inventory build-up.

I think, unless the demand is growing faster than those capital inflows, we have a classic financial pyramid that is fed by inflow of new money. At one point in future this process will be exhausted and the money will start to flow out. That means that at expiration time the sellers will dominate buyers and final producers will rather burn out inventories then buy new stuff. That will make commodities to go down at the quite impressive speed. When it will happen? I have no idea :-)

http://theroxylandr.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/how-commodity-speculation-works/
 
Now you are speaking of stockpiling and not futures trading. Note the difference between spot and future trading and how one can effect the price by simply warehousing product.

Again, speculating on future prices can lead you to ruin because your bet on the future pricing does not effect the actual spot pricing. At some point people will stop stockpiling and thus supply will again be lower compared to the demand.

The suggestion that futures trading and speculation changes pricing is simply misunderstanding the market.

In the previous posts I spoke directly to that. When buying futures you are not actually purchasing the delivery of oil to yourself, you are betting against the future pricing of the commodity at delivery.

If you are "spot" purchasing you either need the stuff, or will warehouse it (like the US creating an emergency stockpile of oil to release in case the stuff hits the fan), each of these will directly effect the price because you actually have the item on hand and can create an artificial short in the supply and increase the price of the item. (Like they have done with diamonds.)

It still is supply and demand setting the price, not speculative purchases.
 
Yeah partly supply and demand of investor money.

Read the experts articles and weep guys.
Again, not the investor money, they horde the stocks if they are inept and spot purchase rather than speculate.

It isn't "read and weep", it is the difference between stuff on hand and speculation.

What they purchase their stock for doesn't make yours more expensive, what does is the fact that they horde the stock and increase demand over supply. If they don't horde it, then they are using it, the cost is what it is. The price they paid for it has nothing to do with the cost at the pump. It is their action with the stuff when they get it that does.

Now, tell me where is the huge increase in oil stocks?
 
Read the official OPEC post Damo.'

I cannot tapdance word game with you, but I know what I know.
I did, again, that one was an excuse as to why they couldn't pump more from the ground.

There is no huge increase in oil stocks because investors are not spot purchasing. They don't because there is no real way to make money doing it, unless you have a direct use for the product.
 
"In opposite, at the commodity market everything expires and is temporary."

False. Nat Gas, Oil do not expire

"There are two markets - spot and futures. At spot market you buy for quick delivery of physical, at futures market you buy the contract for future delivery. Every single physical is traded at the market either for immediate or future delivery and every future contract is eventually replaced by physical delivery."

The bolded portion is 100% false. The complete stupidity of that comment should tell everyone the author is a novice at best with regards to futures trading. For the 1-2% that actually have a settlement, you have both physical settlement AND CASH settlement. But the other 98-99% of futures contracts are simply reversed out.

"The final consumers of every commodity are expecting the futures to trade at discount to current spot price,"

Again, 100% false. They expect futures prices to reflect a future supply and demand situation as compared to todays prices.

"Russ Winter chart shows the constant inflow of funds “invested” into commodities. I take “investment” into quotes because of the fundamental difference. While at stock markets investment means ownership of something permanent, at commodities markets “investment” means some traders are stuck with futures between producers and consumers. Every month, those traders transfer this temporary ownership to consumers and buy more from producers, which leads into price increase and inventory build-up."

This is a warped way of looking at futures trading. The futures trader is not "stuck" holding anything. They facilitate the trade between buyer and seller. They take a spread for completing the transaction, but are then out of it.

"I think, unless the demand is growing faster than those capital inflows, we have a classic financial pyramid that is fed by inflow of new money. At one point in future this process will be exhausted and the money will start to flow out. That means that at expiration time the sellers will dominate buyers and final producers will rather burn out inventories then buy new stuff. That will make commodities to go down at the quite impressive speed."

Again, the above show this author to be a complete moron. There is a buyer and a seller for each contract issued. Buyers are not going to continue buying contracts if they think the contract does not reflect an accurate price for the underlying commodity. The market is efficient.



" I have no idea :-)"

The bolded part is the only accurate thing this author said.


http://theroxylandr.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/how-commodity-speculation-works/

US.... thanks for posting such complete garbage.
 
well at least you are picking on nationally recognized experts with degrees and not me :)
Hey those were the first things that came up on my search , I did not cherrypick.
 
USC = zero economics or any college classes in business
Freak = degree in economics, real world experience in markets practically equal to a phd
Epi= not sure betting he's degreed, prob has had economics
Damo is also a computer guy, but actuall did go to college and maybe the smartest having held apple since way below $70.
Hmmm tough one, I'll go with the educated guys.
 
well at least you are picking on nationally recognized experts with degrees and not me :)
Hey those were the first things that came up on my search , I did not cherrypick.

LOL... fair enough.... not that I suggested you were cherry picking, just that the articles you were posting were full of errors.
 
People who first come to a conclusion then desperately seek "facts" to back up their conclusion tend to ignore a whole bunch of stuff when attempting to convince you they are right.

Such people will often have article after article for years upon years during 6% growth saying we are "entering" a recession, or stating we already are in a recession, then cheer themselves when they are finally right.
 
People who first come to a conclusion then desperately seek "facts" to back up their conclusion tend to ignore a whole bunch of stuff when attempting to convince you they are right.

Such people will often have article after article for years upon years during 6% growth saying we are "entering" a recession, or stating we already are in a recession, then cheer themselves when they are finally right.

Ahh went for the bait like a beer at an AAA meeting :D
 
drunk drivers.

I told you Damo I did not cherry pick and those were the first to come up on my search screens.
 
Back
Top