Oil Price Targets

Back on April 8th, we published the first chart below highlighting the consensus price targets for oil from commodity analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.  Oil was trading at $108 at the time, but price targets were still well below that in the $80-$90 range. 

With the recent spike to $140, analysts have upped their price targets on oil to $125-$128 through the first quarter of 2009.  Over the last couple of months, analysts have turned more bullish on the commodity.  Only time will tell if this bullishness was prescient, or too little too late.

click to enlarge

Comments

[wtfracing.net]

They can analyze all they want. They have no clue past 6 months out what oil will do.

[ValueInvestor]

Analysts are notoriously terrible at predicting anything and everything. I've seen it over and over again where an analyst changes his/her prediction of oil, gold, copper, nickel, etc just because the near term price has moved up or down. They simply keep their prediction in line with current prices instead of making a serious prediction and sticking to it. They all look across the street and say "What did Jim predict? I guess I'd better stay in line with him."

Geez, when Oil was at $140 you could hear every analyst on the block saying "Its going to $200", and now that its back down to $125 they're saying "Its going to $100". Silly.

[marcus aurelius]

Valueinvester,

Cam Hui in this column is looking smart: seekingalpha.com/artic...

In the article he speculates oil will hit $100/barrel before it hits $150. At the time oil was setting records at $147.00/barrle.

[redriver]

When the Olympics are over we should be able to stand on the beach in La Jolla and see the plume of smoke coming from China as every major industry starts up at once. Good way to test their grid too. Demand Reconstruction.

[alpha24seven]

One analyst actually controls the price of oil. I'm not joking. His name is Arjun Murti at GS. He was the original "super spike" guy that called oil at $100. He got lucky because of Katrina. Super spike V2 said +$140 and then $200. Guess what -- we hit $146.

He front runs the oil price for GS prod commodity desk that makes billions trading oil. We will never know how much exactly because they bury the prop desk under four business units and you can't back out the numbers. Widely recognized as "extremely large".

There are few people (maybe five total) that can move the market on their words/report and he is definitely one of them. He is arguably the most powerful person on the planet and there isn't even a picture of him...

Do the research yourself. Ask why his thesis is supply and demand yet as an example, one of the companies he covers MRO, is pissing all over themselves finding oil in the Bakken.

[ValueInvestor]

Marcus,

You're right. He's one of the few that have their own opinions. Everyone else just seems to be moving with the heard.

[marcus aurelius]

I have taken to reading INO.com & the Trader's Blog, these guys are technical investors and rely on trends. They are not going to be the first ones to pick up on a market move.

In fact, back in June or so Adam said his methodology was telling him to short oil and the very next day shorts were wrong and in a big way. He then came on and freely admitted he was wrong about oil's move, and went onto to note no system is foolproof. I think a fair amount of the people out there are technical investors.

After all, "the trend is your friend" is not some piece of wise insight, its common knowledge.

[[e-mail]]

If your talking about who really controls the price of oil, don't forget Hasan Qabazard: Editor in Chief of Opec's Monthly Oil Reports.

Based on what was reported in Opec's July Outlook I think it's realistic that we might see oil prices fall somewhat, but don't forget that now the American Public is "price conditioned," to accept $4+/gallon gasoline, so the inevitable creep back towards larger vehicles may happen sooner than you think. I tend to think that oil prices will stabilize in the $112 to $124 a barrel range. We may see some temporary dips below that price, but they'll be relatively short-lived-less than a week.

[paultaut]

Only the Shadow knows.

Give Oil a chance to drop some more, but look to the Brent contract as an indicator.

Now that Americans can deal with above $4 gasoline, the inevitable strike on Iran's Nuc facilities could propel oil to 180 from here but not the 200+ previously forecast.

[CaptBob]

You too can be an expert Analyst:

1.There are three kinds of each commodity class-(of which oil is one).
a. Finite and renewable--Oil is finite-Corn renewable.
1a. With and without viable substitutes--Oil or walk--Corn or rice?.
b. Affordable and non affordable=Not how much you want it but how much your willing and have the ability to pay. The top is an A+.
c. Amount on the auction block at any point in time. You portion this out to the A+'s till there's none left. The remaining buyers go home on their bikes.

The amount of oil on the block is going down--the dollars used to buy it with are going down-(in value=takes more to buy with demand staying equal). The amount of buyers is increasing, there's just more A+'s in America than China,-BUT there's more of them at 1liter each, which raises the price on a lot of liters.

Now!! Equipped with these secret formulates you are ready to go out and dazzle the experts--in the long term.
The short term requires a course in "Twitchy Buffalo Heard" predicting.

[John Egan]

'paultaut'... Re: "the inevitable strike on Iran's Nuc facilities".... There is no inevitable attack. The Israelis don't want it any more than we can afford to. Bush can't. He'd kill McCain's chances for election. The military can't handle the two conflicts we are already embroiled in. Our NATO buddies are too busy selling products and buying oil from Iran to want to kill their deals during what appears to be a prescient down-turn in the European market.... Why would we attack Iran???

My feeling is that for all the spin from our administration, Iran has many good reasons to develop nuclear power. Whether or not they are also working on weaponry is debatable (and I don't trust Bush to tell me the truth after his track record.) And, if they are doing so, ask yourself why they wouldn't. After all, we gave nukes to the Israeli. If we were in their place, would you pay any attention to another aggressor country telling you you could not develop an effective alternate energy supply or the same weapons that they gave your neighbors. I don't think so! I think we Americans need to stop listening to what our government says and does and begin thinking for ourselves. If this issue is uncomfortable, then remember, we opened this Pandora's box.

jegan ;-)

[BHM]

If there are any indications, speculators crude futures positions point to possible right direction.

behindmarkets.blogspot...

[paultaut]

The US isn't about to hit Iran's Nuc facilities, The Israelis are. Apparently, you missed their declaration about a month ago: War is Unavoidable.

The Israelis aren't going to wait for the change in Leadership which will apparently be someone who wants to appease a terrorist state. Israel won't allow an Iran with Nuc capabilities. Bush backs its need to protect itself from Iran whose leadership has publically announced that they want Israel wiped from the map.

Time is not on Israel's side.

Meanwhile, Iran announced today that they now have 6,000 centrifuges operational. I believe 5,000 was the minimum needed to provide weapons grade uranium.

Timewise, the earlier the strike, the longer their shield from Iran's counterstrike.

[youngolf]

JohnEgan-agree with you wholeheartedly. Our once great country is being run by a circle of greedy little boys now grown up and wanting to play with their military toys. Power and greed hungry. I often put myself in the place of other smaller countries and imagine what they would think about studly USA.

Instead of doing 'what is right and good for the country'...our leadership is like the USGA officials I just recently came in contact with at an amateur championship - they hold these national events at the posh, private, ultra-exclusive country clubs - instead of on courses for the common golfers. Therefore, no minorities or middle america kids show up for what are great golf matches, where you can actually walk the fairway with the players. And the USGA wants to 'Grow the Game'....

Its the 'good ole boy' USGA still wanting to rub shoulders with the rich rather than do what is 'right and good for all'. Thats our country right now, unfortunately.