What's Wrong with Market Speculation? 25 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
I’m sure that no one would be surprised that CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton was not pleased by my recent post that lambasted his equation of the activities of ETFs with manipulation. Well, the sarcasm was arguably overdone (that NEVER happens, I’m sure you’re saying), but I stand foursquare by the substance.
Well, now Commissioner Chilton penned an editorial in the Des Moines Register that lays out his argument for the need to restrict speculation. It is a very weak argument indeed, and it would be a tragedy if anything like it is the basis for major changes in the regulation of derivatives markets.
He starts with a wild mischaracterization of history:
For a hundred years, farmers in Iowa and around the nation have been able to hedge their business risks in the futures markets. The entire endeavor has worked well for farmers, futures exchanges and our economy. In the last few years, however, things have changed. New “non-traditional” speculators, such as hedge funds, index funds, pension funds and endowments, have all entered the futures markets, bringing with them massive new liquidity but also some very real concerns. Unlike commercial speculators - for example, farmers, processors and refiners who actually do business in the underlying commodity, be it corn or beans, natural gas or crude oil - the new speculators have no such similar interests. The new speculators are only interested in one thing: increasing long-term profits in their investment portfolios. Therefore, their trading strategy differs significantly from the commercial traders who move in and out of the markets on a regular basis, depending upon many market-based factors.
This is to suggest that speculators looking only to make money, without “do[ing] business in the underlying commodity” are a new phenomenon. I’m sure that readers of the Register in 1909 or 1899 or 1889 would have begged to differ. Moreover, speculators of whatever age “have moved in and out the markets on a regular basis, depending on many market-based factors.”
This argument seems to make motive the primary criterion for determining whether somebody is eligible to trade a futures market. This is truly disturbing. It also suggests that Commissioner Chilton believes that commodities should be fenced off from other financial markets. This is bad finance, and actually harms market users by interfering with the efficient transfer of risk.
Chilton also says: “The new speculators buy into the markets for years, and stay there.” And we are to conclude . . . ? And again, there have been many speculators that have made it their living for long periods.
As for evidence, Commissioner Chilton relies on one of the least creditable tropes: the “some suggest” argument:
Due to the influence some suggest the new speculators may be having on prices, however, there may be some changes on the horizon for these new players.
I (and others) suggest otherwise. So where does that leave us?
Then he pulls out the “it’s possible” justification:
Just as the tide raises all boats, it is possible that this massive influx of capital helped to raise commodity prices beyond what the simple forces of supply and demand would dictate. The crude oil “commodity bubble” is a good example. To date this year, crude oil is trading at roughly $70 a barrel. While that is a far cry from the incredible (and some say irrational) high of $147 last summer, the current price is still up over 60 percent from the beginning of this year. Does that make sense?
A lot of things are possible. Some evidence would be helpful. The role of evidence is to help sort out what’s probable from what’s possible. You can’t make policy on the possible, since so much of the possible is contradictory. X may be possible. Not X may be possible too. We’re right where we started. Reasonable analysis requires effort to determine which of these possible outcomes is more likely, and to estimate the costs of incorrect conclusions. Identifying the possible is the beginning of an inquiry. It clearly cannot be the end.
And note the second helping of the “some say” trope: “incredible (and some say irrational) . . .”
In fact, economists have known for a long time that commodities can exhibit substantial variability, and that in particular, in models where only fundamentals drive prices, prices spike and crash with regularity. That’s exactly what you’d expect in a market for a commodity like oil. There’s no reason to invoke the “bubble” word to explain big moves in commodity prices.
Indeed, the reason speculators are attracted to commodities is the volatility. That’s a lot more plausible statement than to say that the speculators cause the volatility.
Now we get to the punchline:
Supply is at a 10-year high and demand is at a 10-year low. You do the math; prices should be lower. And if the cause was uneconomic speculative activity (that is, not caused by the forces of supply and demand), then regulators have a responsibility to act.
There is no doubt that the current commodities market is more puzzling on the surface than what happened in 2008 or early 2009. But speculation by financial players in the US or the UK is hardly the first thing that bears scrutiny. Indeed it should be about the last. In all major commodities, the big buyers have been China, China, and China. China has engaged in a stimulus that beggars the imagination, and probably in part to reduce its exposure to the dollar, a lot of that money has gone into commodities from aluminum to zinc. The CFTC–with considerable Congressional cheerleading–is on a snipe hunt, and ignoring major factors in the market. If Commissioner Chilton is puzzled, he needs to read more.
And note the tricky segue in the argument: “if the cause was uneconomic speculation . . . then regulators have the responsibility to act.” But the “if” remains just that. Chilton certainly has not provided a scintilla of evidence to support that contention. He mentions the CFTC hearings on position limits, which generated zip, zero, nada in terms of anything that would pass the laugh test in terms of evidence.
And Commissioner Chilton then fails to man up and take a stand himself, instead invoking the “some say” argument yet again: he describes the hearings as a step in a process “to address what many call ‘excessive speculation’ in our futures markets.” Again. Many say it ain’t. ”Some say”–even “many say”–is hardly a legitimate basis for any major policy initiative.
Amazingly, Commissioner Chilton repeats the “unintentional manipulation” gaffe:
The clear message is that physical commodities - like those in the agricultural, energy and metals arenas - are too important to our nation to allow even the possibility of price manipulation, intentional or unintentional.
He will undoubtedly say that he is using the word “manipulation” in some common-sense use of the term to mean the actions of traders that affect prices.
That doesn’t cut it, for at least three reasons:
- First. There is no common-sense use of the term. That’s been a problem for a long time–and is exactly why I quoted the Texas cotton broker in my original post. Or to quote my book on manipulation, if Ambrose Bierce was writing the Devil’s Dictionary of Finance, I would define manipulation as anything that causes me to lose money.
- Second, this is sort of the immaculate conception theory of prices. If trading activity doesn’t affect prices, what does? Surely public information releases (e.g., a crop report) have an effect, but people still interpret those releases differently and trade on their interpretation. Moreover, some traders have private information, and trading on that information moves prices. That tends to make prices more informative. That’s a good thing. It’s called price discovery. How can you have price discovery if trades don’t affect prices? I should also note that hedgers’ trades can affect prices. Putting on a big hedge may require a move in price to find somebody willing to take the risk. Here the market is discovering the price of risk, and consenting adults will negotiate a mutually agreeable price. And such a price will almost certainly be different than if no such trade had taken place. Thus, hedgers can have a price impact. Are they manipulators too? (And, I might add, hedgers will have a bigger price impact if speculation is constrained. So, if trades that impact price are manipulative, and hedgers have a bigger price impact when speculation is constrained, wouldn’t that make the party that constrains the speculation an accessory in the manipulation? That question is only half in jest.) In other words, defining manipulation to mean any trade that has a price impact is complete non-sense, not common sense. Such markets exist in textbooks, and nowhere else.
- Third, and most importantly, Commissioner Chilton is one of those responsible for enforcing the anti-manipulation laws. These laws make manipulation a felony. They also subject manipulators to the prospect of heavy fines, and great reputational damage. As a result, no CFTC Commissioner should use this term imprecisely, or make statements using words that have legal meaning in such a cavalier way. In other words, I don’t believe that someone in the position of enforcing the law has the luxury of making such implicit distinctions on matters of potential legal import.
The term is provocative, and its use suggests that the markets have been manipulated. People believe that manipulation is wrong, and many know that manipulation is a crime. This creates a presumption that there is something wrong–manipulated–in the markets that need correction.
I would also suggest that this could lead to serious difficulties for the Commission, and for Commissioner Chilton, if the Commission ever has to rule on a manipulation case. I can see a defendant appealing an adverse Commission decision on manipulation by saying that one of the Commissioners had written in a way that could suggest ignorance of the law, and/or a prejudicial view of the activities of speculators.
It seems to me that Commissioner Chilton is attempting to have it both ways: to insinuate that the markets have been manipulated to persuade people of the need to regulate more aggressively and intrusively, while avoiding having to provide evidence to support his insinuation, escaping instead with evasions about how he’s not using the term in the legal sense, just in some “common sense” way.
But if the activities aren’t illegal, then what is the justification for the regulation? And if there is a justification other than manipulation as legally defined, why use such an inflammatory term that has a specific legal meaning, rather than explain precisely what that justification is? Why not set out in plain terms exactly what he thinks is wrong with the activity of speculators, and their effect on prices, and let people analyze that contention without waving the bloody shirt of manipulation to inflame passions? And maybe, just maybe, provide some reliable evidence in the bargain, rather than relying on the “some say” evasion.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask of those responsible for the regulation of markets with huge sums on the line. In fact, I think it’s far too little to ask. But I’ll take it as a start.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Joseph L. Sha...
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Somehow the free markets always work themselves out in the end.
On Sep 02 08:57 AM SteveK wrote:
> Craig is consistent in his diatribe for free enterprise. However,
> he totally ignores consumers of commodities and emerging news that
> "non"-physical traders have grossly distorted physical supply and
> demand commodity markets particularly the oil market. Recent news
> indicates that post-Enron rules changes have allowed many financial
> entities and their offspring to go off the reservation to promote
> non-physical speculation with little or no regulation.
>
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you take
> a $100B physical marketplace and then add a $500B+ non-physical trading
> marketplace to the equation that a lot of price volatility and speculative
> activity will drive the overall and physical marketplace. Consumers
> do NOT need non-physical speculators manipulate prices at the gas
> station! Non-physical investment is okay to the extent that it adds
> appropriate liquidity but does NOT distort the marketplace. Our
> government, in conjunction with other "global" governments, needs
> to establish regulations that support adequate liquidity, both physical
> and non-physical, for the marketplace and minimize speculative excesses!
> GREED under the guise of free enterprise should not be allowed to
> override the greater public good.
No different than going to "Lost Wages" and sitting down at a roulette wheel.
On Sep 02 09:18 AM Baboon wrote:
> Bubbles in all asset classes are unavoidable. The latest real estate
> bubble was caused by speculators. Were they 'physical' or 'non-physical'
> investors? How can you tell them apart? Or how can you prohibit some
> people from buying a house? And why 'non-physical' investors now
> have no power to drive the price of oil to $200?
> Somehow the free markets always work themselves out in the end.<br/>
>
> On Sep 02 08:57 AM SteveK wrote:
On Sep 02 11:31 AM SteveK wrote:
> Unregulated, non-physical speculators distort the free
> market !!!
This is fallacy. Only the market determines it's own fair value. What's the fair value of oil? As much as the buyers are willing to pay for it. What you are trying to say is: let's remove all speculators to prevent asset bubbles. But are we for the free equal opportunity markets or for the markets with a small number of exclusive club mafia-type participants? So if we are for the free markets that are open to all as I am then we should simply realize that asset bubbles are intrinsic part of the free markets and there is nothing one can do about it. Just let the market work out it's excesses as it eventually will.
So, now as american retirement funds are tied up in the stock market, people want an explanation why their retirement fud is down 30-40%,. And it is always easier ot blame it on scapegoats rather than acknowledge that 401K was a very very bad isea pushed on average american by Wall Street and benefiting Wall Street only.
On Sep 02 12:24 PM Baboon wrote:
>
> On Sep 02 11:31 AM SteveK wrote:
On Sep 02 12:37 PM SteveK wrote:
> Empty logic, no facts, not my position on speculators/bubbles, just
> GREED!!!
But who cares, right??
Anyway...
Investment Advice: Leave commodities to the pros...
Sure stocks will correct 7-10%, people will go back to their commodity ETFs and push commodities & Gold (the price) up. Then, things will relax and normalize people will start rotating out of their commodity stuff around late september and around mid October and equities will move upward, steadily not crazy, until the end of the year (all the fund managers have to keep theri jobs ya know) getting back the 10% they lost in the first two weeks of September. But what the hell do I know...
It's nice to see a normalization of the markets so that they are so predictable. I can't wait until people start talking about "holiday" travel, the end of "hurricane season" and all the other stupid stuff they propogate to move markets on a short term basis.
Folks, it's back to the future. Funs over. Sorry. Now people are going to have to start talking about IPOs and companies that actually make products. Those poor dumb bastards at Fast Money on CNBC are all going to have to find new jobs. They will be replaced by an "IPO Expert" and an "M&A Guru". Wow, people might actually start taking about things they know something about. Instead of "buy the rips sell the dips".
As for gold, if it breaks out of $1000 that means that they are letting the suckers in...Get ready for it to drop, and I mean seriously after that.
I hate to say it but has any one on SA spent a day in the pits? If you're not in the game, you're out of the game. If you're not in the know you're out of the know. If your not the smart money you're the dumb money. In the 70s more dummies got cleaned out in the pits than any Madoff scandal. to me this looks just like the same thing- history repeating itself....But what do I know...
I love these "so called" defenders of the "investors". they are not "investors" or, really "speculators" they are pariahs...
Those are the flows which were driving up prices. Not Joe "Yours/Mine" punting around in the futures.
On Sep 03 01:18 AM Mike Kane wrote:
> People forget that it is speculators who brought down commodities
> prices last year too...it goes both ways.
The amount of money in circulation......
How is the money controlled in circulation? By loans and the federal reserve.
Isn't it possible.....that speculators are only chasing prices...not setting them?
If speculation was in fact causing the prices...wouldn't there be a disconnect between delivery prices and spot prices? there is no such thing.
And the market is forward looking......with all the projects coming offline......I think people are seeing the problem.....future supply will decrease....current inventories are high (because of the recent run up in oil prices in 2008). They are looking ahead and saying....there is going to be a large problem.....we need prices higher to spur growth in oil supply.
If oil prices are low today....the future oil supply will be less....as todays oil prices increase....future oil supply will be greater. Its a double edged sword....where the market is right and wrong 100% of the time...and is why the price moves so rapidly to adjust.....
When you let 500 billion in gambling money into a 100 billion market, the dollars drive the market, not the market fundamentals. Want to wipe out gamblers on the other side of a trade, drop or add another 100 billion from another market, make billions on both trades. Jump your billions around dozens of markets, wreaking each in turn, over and over.
On Sep 03 11:39 AM amdman wrote:
> If you watched 60 minutes you know that the Wall Street manipulators
> conned Congress into repealing Depression Era financial gambling
> laws. Laws that protected us against speculation bubbles, fed by
> financial gamblers, not investors.
Apple has more speculation in it in one day than the oil market does in a year..........
If the regulators want to clamp down on speculation, they need to clamp down on the stock market.