Friday's oil price decline was impressive given the inventory report. However, this one-day oddity was made out to be some evidence of the bursting of the “oil bubble.” The stock market bulls and their spin of the oil bubble is quite a farce.
What do we mean by “bubble” anyway? One way to define a bubble is to call it a surge in prices beyond what supply and demand would predict. The problem is that we do a pretty poor job of predicting supply and demand.
First of all, I have no idea whether oil is a bubble or not or whether commodities as a group are a bubble. I don’t waste much time on pursuits like that. More importantly, I have no real idea what good it does to either define it as a bubble or to quantify what percentage of the bubble we should blame on specific groups. None of this “analysis” will result in lower prices.
But the bubble talk certainly is a fun tool for the permabulls. Somehow, they have become experts on what constitutes a bubble despite their failures to recognize it in the 1999-2000 tech stock bubble. Oh yeah - most of them didn’t believe the housing market from 200-2006 was a bubble either. But now, they know a bubble when they see one as it relates to oil. Okay - I got it.
The Nasdaq Tech Bubble of 1999-2000 ran up about 150% in less than two years and then declined about 75% from peak to trough. And yet, most permabulls kept denying that anything was bursting until the fall of 2000 despite losing 20% from the top.
The housing bubbles in certain metropolitan areas like Phoenix, Miami, San Diego et al saw prices run up a few hundred percent from 2000-2006 and there were quite a few people saying it was pure supply and demand - not a bubble. Since the stock market benefited from the housing bubbles, you didn’t hear too many of the bubble experts we have today opining on the size of the bubble or what would happen to the economy or stocks if it burst or what percentage decline signified the beginning of a bubble bursting. Yet, now many of these same morons proclaim that a 25% decline in some of these markets is a bottom. I am not sure how they know that.
And neither do I know how they are so certain that oil is a bubble. Consider their past performance.
Somehow, Friday became evidence that the bubble in oil was bursting. It’s funny really. We don’t know even know if there is a bubble. I know we want to believe it’s a bubble because that means it’s not our fault and its only temporary. But none of that makes it true. And if we concede that oil prices are totally out of whack, then what evidence do we have to know that it won’t get bigger? Optimism is not fact.
Regardless, the permabulls and the media love this bubble spin. And what it really comes down to is that if they convince everyone that it is a bubble, that is good for stocks. If it’s not a bubble, then the economy is going to tank even worse than it already will. And we cannot let that appear to be a possibility. So spin away. Keep telling everyone that it’s just a bubble because bubbles burst and then we get lower prices and then the economy and the stock market will be back to La La Land - and hopefully rebuilding its own bubble that everyone seems to love. They suggest that all the fast money speculating in oil will have to find its way to stocks and voila - you get an asset allocation rally. So yesterday’s decline in oil prices was just perfect for the permabulls. To them and anyone else desperate for lower oil and stock market rallies, a 3% decline was proof that the bubble was beginning to burst. After all, if we claim that it is bursting, then it must have been a bubble, ipso facto.
So it’s all spin. If you just look at the facts, oil declined to a point where it was one week ago. That’s it. Maybe oil prices will come down a bit. Let’s say its down 25%, and we get to $100 per barrel. Is that the size of the bubble? We lost 75% of the tech stock bubble. Are we going to lose 75% of current oil prices? That would put us back to about $32. But what if this oil bubble is only as big as the housing bubbles that people want to limit to 25%?
We have multiple standards for bubbles. We fail to recognize bubbles that benefit us (housing and stocks) and we are quick to identify bubbles that hurt us (oil). We underestimate the size of the bubbles that benefit us and we exaggerate the size of bubbles that hurt us. We find it really easy to say a decline in a bubble that benefits us is only a temporary and healthy pullback, while we are quick to suggest that a decline in a bubble that hurts us is the start of a massive bursting and return to “normality.”
Stop reading my negativity - go back to the regular media and all that bubble spin.
Related Articles
|
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »



This article has 12 comments:
- mlimberg
- 12 Comments
Jun 01 01:34 PM- green_cheeks
- 45 Comments
Jun 01 02:17 PM- zenalgorithm
- 158 Comments
Jun 01 03:26 PMgas2.org/2008/03/19/el.../
- phillips49
- 49 Comments
Jun 01 03:48 PMI do know that the dot com bubble was based on get rich quick speculation over intangible un-necessary assets with no base.
I do know that the housing bubble was based on tangible but optional assets bid up on low interest borrowed money.
I do know that oil is a tangible asset that is not optional in an modern industrailized growing world.
I do know there is wide disagreement about peaking and world capacity and the political and geological effects on price.
I do know there would be no debate over depletion or peaking if there was abundant over supply.
I do know that the world is using 30 billion barrels of oil a year and that there are major obstacles to overcome to sustain or grow that amount over the long haul.
I do know that supply/demand whether structural or political is effecting price.
I do know that the cost of replacing depleted fields is increasing.
I do know that modern transportation is based on liquid fuel and that the global infrastructure supports liquid fuel for the transportation system.
I do know that there is no economically available substitue for the liquid fuel that we use or have infrastructure to support the fleet.
My conclusion from what I do know is that the price of oil will continue to increase following the laws of supply and demand until the cost forces a reduction in demand, but thereafter will remain at a high price for those that still afford to buy it.
- barnburner
- 75 Comments
Jun 01 03:59 PM- Reinko
- 328 Comments
Jun 01 06:02 PM1) If you use the Masters report information from the Homeland Security Department, you can easily calculate that as a point estimation the price of crude oil is bubbled up by 37.2%
(Regardless of the price, world oil production is 85 million barrels a day so you simply withdraw those index speculators from it..)
2) Since there are only two oil markets these prices are up on a global scale, I still have not given orders to OPEC to deliver to more markets. I have only asked to craft better contracts for poor countries.
__________
Let me quote from the article from Mike:
Since the stock market benefited from the housing bubbles, you didn’t hear too many of the bubble experts we have today opining on the size of the bubble or what would happen to the economy or stocks if it burst or what percentage decline signified the beginning of a bubble bursting.
Comment: Elementary calculations from the period 1996 - 2006 relating median family income to median house prices indicate we could see a 50% decline.
That is over ten trillion US$ of US family housing equity wiped away...
And then we have:
4) The policies of Alan Greenspan gave rise to the 'cash is trash' policies of for example pension funds. So pension funds got into commodities and oil and stuff like that, after their future obligations are to feed the already obese Americans and not those skinny third world people.
And what about this:
5) When you study the scale of a lot of metals, on a worldwide scale those markets as a whole are nothing but an average Nasdaq listing. You only need a few billions to pump such markets up.
Conclusion: The biggest bubble of all still is the US dollar...
Lets leave it with that.
- mlimberg
- 12 Comments
Jun 01 06:08 PM""As he pointed out, the common wisdom of five years ago was "there are more and more people that need housing and a limited amount of land-there's not place for housing prices to go but up" and, like oil, it was a commodity that people "needed". ""
Farmers said the same thing in the 1970's, farmland, they don't make anymore... but you got to pay the bill for it someday.
Americans today are "Ilfunctional literates":
Individuals who are educated, yet fail to apply basic mathematics, reading and logic to simple everyday contracts.
I saw the housing thing coming because it looked just like the farming mess of the 70's... It will take years for this to correct. In the mean time, banks will fail just like the S&L's did....
- Alex Filonov
- 280 Comments
My Website
Jun 01 11:14 PMI'm not writing about politics, usually. But everything about oil is about politics anyway.
In the long run, oil is going down. Long term, if you look at 100 year chart, oil matches gold.
- ship shape and bristol fashion
- 59 Comments
Jun 02 03:26 AMBut where is that recession?
Unless there is some giant sea monster out there, which developed an appetite for dry bulk carriers, the Baltic Dry Index signals a strong world economy.
Cheap oil is consumed!
Unless you discover a Ghawar and Cantarel field, you are not going to see cheap oil again. I don't think oil companies will keep fields online, where the per barrel cost is higher than the price. If i have costs of 60$ per barrel and the barrel costs 59.90$, i shut the valve and open it up again when oil is at 75$. Simple. Low prices will kill low prices!
NEW FIELDS ARE BEING DISCOVERED, BECAUSE OIL IS EXPENSIVE, OIL IS NOT UP IN SPITE OF NEW DISCOVERIES!
- ChinaMart
- 30 Comments
My Website
Jun 02 07:33 AM- The Stockaccumulator
- 42 Comments
Jun 02 08:21 PM- YogiG
- 42 Comments
Jun 02 10:12 PM