Commodity Bubble Proponent's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/157113/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/115466-ghost-malls-coming-to-your-town?source=feed#comment-361341 361341
I agree with Tazman. You will have some vacant malls, some stores will close down, but people will still shop.

An 8% reduction in consumer spending as a percentage of the US GDP hurts, but it is not a doomsday number.

These malls will eventually be redeveloped. In retail, there has been a significant shift in the last 10-15 years to outdoor, pedestrian friendly shopping and away from the titan malls of the 1980s. These outdoor malls (and there are a few in my area) have done quite well and are not in danger of becoming ghost town.]]> Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:43:16 -0500
I agree with Tazman. You will have some vacant malls, some stores will close down, but people will still shop.

An 8% reduction in consumer spending as a percentage of the US GDP hurts, but it is not a doomsday number.

These malls will eventually be redeveloped. In retail, there has been a significant shift in the last 10-15 years to outdoor, pedestrian friendly shopping and away from the titan malls of the 1980s. These outdoor malls (and there are a few in my area) have done quite well and are not in danger of becoming ghost town.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115199-what-s-in-store-for-2009-gold-metals-and-other-markets?source=feed#comment-359651 359651
One of the big things you (and most of the inflation proponents) are missing is that we have a massive delevering going on right now in the system. The trillions of dollars of asset backed securities, derivatives, bad commodity investment instruments, stock market and real estate declines are far outweighing the stimulus that the Fed is putting into the system. Much of the run-up in a lot of the investment ideas you have up here was based on being able to leverage 20-30 to 1 with tons of hedge fund money.

My take is that there is going to be a massive shortage of dollars in the system because the Feds are not going to be able to paper over the trillions of dollars of losses. I expect alot of the fear in the system to continue for the foreseeable future.

That being said, I'm not sure how you would take these points into account in your analysis. I guess you would almost have to look at total losses v. new money inserted into the system to really get a good sense of whether or not inflation is really occuring or about to occur.

People are taking a too simplistic approach to analyzing the issue. Its too easy just to point at the fed's money pumping and not look at the other side of the equation]]> Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:05:38 -0500
One of the big things you (and most of the inflation proponents) are missing is that we have a massive delevering going on right now in the system. The trillions of dollars of asset backed securities, derivatives, bad commodity investment instruments, stock market and real estate declines are far outweighing the stimulus that the Fed is putting into the system. Much of the run-up in a lot of the investment ideas you have up here was based on being able to leverage 20-30 to 1 with tons of hedge fund money.

My take is that there is going to be a massive shortage of dollars in the system because the Feds are not going to be able to paper over the trillions of dollars of losses. I expect alot of the fear in the system to continue for the foreseeable future.

That being said, I'm not sure how you would take these points into account in your analysis. I guess you would almost have to look at total losses v. new money inserted into the system to really get a good sense of whether or not inflation is really occuring or about to occur.

People are taking a too simplistic approach to analyzing the issue. Its too easy just to point at the fed's money pumping and not look at the other side of the equation]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114575-despite-economic-headwinds-gold-will-outperform?source=feed#comment-355103 355103
Look out below once the fun ends]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:33:25 -0500
Look out below once the fun ends]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113461-options-trader-tuesday-outlook?source=feed#comment-349254 349254 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:35:37 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113446-crudomania-is-over?source=feed#comment-349251 349251
1. Much of the run-up was due to highly leveraged "investments" in oil futures that have now gone the other way.

As for that 86 million barrels/day of demand, it never really existed b/c much of that stuff was hidden in oil tankers and floating storage facilities that were recently constructed. I can point you to plenty of articles about how Iran was storing millions of barrels of oil in tankers in June, and how Singapore's floating storage tanks were full, etc. There is a TON of oil out there that no one wants.

2. Oil will not quickly reverse b/c now we have millions of barrels of spare capacity in OPEC countries (almost 5 million of spare capacity-- 1.5 million before the OPEC cuts +4.2 million of supply cuts). Demand has collapsed dramatically and is not likely to just come back on a whim. Dramatic changes are occuring globally in terms of how we use energy that will permanently affect demand (just as in the 1980s).

3. As more oil equipment gets built, the cost of developing new oil fields will go down. Much of the rise in the cost of finding new oil was due to the fact that oil rig prices tripled in 2 years. These rigs suddenly didnt become more valuable or hard to put together. Oil service companies will adjust to that economic reality and construct new oil equipment at a breakneck speed.

4. Alternative energy investments while curtailed are still ongoing due to climate change and other political agendas. As second generation biofuels come into play that aren't corn/sugar and are more sustainable, this will create supply side pressure on oil (even by historical standards, $50 oil is still really really expensive).

Whenever people start talking about the long term outlook for oil (greater than 5-10 years), remember that investments in other forms of energy will become commercialized during this period too as Obama and the democrats are not going to let this go


]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:32:48 -0500
1. Much of the run-up was due to highly leveraged "investments" in oil futures that have now gone the other way.

As for that 86 million barrels/day of demand, it never really existed b/c much of that stuff was hidden in oil tankers and floating storage facilities that were recently constructed. I can point you to plenty of articles about how Iran was storing millions of barrels of oil in tankers in June, and how Singapore's floating storage tanks were full, etc. There is a TON of oil out there that no one wants.

2. Oil will not quickly reverse b/c now we have millions of barrels of spare capacity in OPEC countries (almost 5 million of spare capacity-- 1.5 million before the OPEC cuts +4.2 million of supply cuts). Demand has collapsed dramatically and is not likely to just come back on a whim. Dramatic changes are occuring globally in terms of how we use energy that will permanently affect demand (just as in the 1980s).

3. As more oil equipment gets built, the cost of developing new oil fields will go down. Much of the rise in the cost of finding new oil was due to the fact that oil rig prices tripled in 2 years. These rigs suddenly didnt become more valuable or hard to put together. Oil service companies will adjust to that economic reality and construct new oil equipment at a breakneck speed.

4. Alternative energy investments while curtailed are still ongoing due to climate change and other political agendas. As second generation biofuels come into play that aren't corn/sugar and are more sustainable, this will create supply side pressure on oil (even by historical standards, $50 oil is still really really expensive).

Whenever people start talking about the long term outlook for oil (greater than 5-10 years), remember that investments in other forms of energy will become commercialized during this period too as Obama and the democrats are not going to let this go


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113034-the-ghost-of-crude-oil-futures-part-2-2?source=feed#comment-345829 345829
You're point about the oil market prices rising rapidly misses one key point however.

1. Companies will scale back on long term projects, not ones where they have already invested in infrastructure. As a result, most of the new production that has been invested in should get built b/c of the amount of money already sunk into those capabilities.

2,. When OPEC cuts production, they increase spare capacity. As a result, when demand starts to increase, OPEC has spare capacity that can handle the new demand. This acts as a damper to rapid price increases. (Spare capacity is now at a healthy 3 million barrels/day)]]> Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:08:51 -0500
You're point about the oil market prices rising rapidly misses one key point however.

1. Companies will scale back on long term projects, not ones where they have already invested in infrastructure. As a result, most of the new production that has been invested in should get built b/c of the amount of money already sunk into those capabilities.

2,. When OPEC cuts production, they increase spare capacity. As a result, when demand starts to increase, OPEC has spare capacity that can handle the new demand. This acts as a damper to rapid price increases. (Spare capacity is now at a healthy 3 million barrels/day)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113056-u-s-treasuries-are-the-biggest-bubble-of-all?source=feed#comment-345726 345726
The fact that the Dow to gold ratio is so out of whack should tell you that Gold is overpriced]]> Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:46:43 -0500
The fact that the Dow to gold ratio is so out of whack should tell you that Gold is overpriced]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112402-gold-poised-to-move-higher?source=feed#comment-341809 341809
Gold's turn is coming. In past historical commodity downturns, gold is usually the last commodity to crack. For instance, in the 1980s commodity price runup, gold peaked after all of the other commodities did. Same thing happened in the 1970s.

I expect another run up of 30-40% in the next 6-9 months, followed by a horrific collapse once investors cannot borrow money to buy gold.

Commodities are cyclical and will not be the first to come back once the market economy improves. The next significant rally will be late 2010s when no one is looking.

Enjoy the ride boys]]> Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:50:17 -0500
Gold's turn is coming. In past historical commodity downturns, gold is usually the last commodity to crack. For instance, in the 1980s commodity price runup, gold peaked after all of the other commodities did. Same thing happened in the 1970s.

I expect another run up of 30-40% in the next 6-9 months, followed by a horrific collapse once investors cannot borrow money to buy gold.

Commodities are cyclical and will not be the first to come back once the market economy improves. The next significant rally will be late 2010s when no one is looking.

Enjoy the ride boys]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112507-oil-futures-market-unwinding-the-bubble?source=feed#comment-340903 340903
Oil rig builders do not need 50% IRRs to justify the development of new equipment.]]> Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:12:10 -0500
Oil rig builders do not need 50% IRRs to justify the development of new equipment.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111857-peter-schiff-outlook-for-the-gold-market?source=feed#comment-337294 337294
As to point 5, "middle class" in China means that you make more than $2,000 per year. To put that in comparison, even at today's prices, $2,000 per year is the average fuel expenditure for the typical American for the year. Chinese demand is really a big myth if you look at the demographic figures

As to the guy who wants to know whats happening to the money that the fed is printing, it is going to replace the depleted capital from all of the bank writedowns. This is not new money that will lead to new lending.

For the gold bugs, the inflationary spike is OVER. The inflation and big spike in asset values occurred with the total relaxation of credit standards globally. Between 2001-2007, if you take into account subprime loans, derivatives, etc., there was tens of trillions of dollars of new money "created" by banks. The fed is a small party in this game with its 2 trillion in new money. As a result, the inflationary boom that Mr. Schiff preaches about endlessly actually died with the collapse of endless credit where people could spend without any regard for their income.

All the Fed's quantitative easing will do is simply slow down the deflationary forces (i.e. imagine what would have happened to oil prices had Goldman/Morgan been allowed to fail in October).]]> Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:39:11 -0500
As to point 5, "middle class" in China means that you make more than $2,000 per year. To put that in comparison, even at today's prices, $2,000 per year is the average fuel expenditure for the typical American for the year. Chinese demand is really a big myth if you look at the demographic figures

As to the guy who wants to know whats happening to the money that the fed is printing, it is going to replace the depleted capital from all of the bank writedowns. This is not new money that will lead to new lending.

For the gold bugs, the inflationary spike is OVER. The inflation and big spike in asset values occurred with the total relaxation of credit standards globally. Between 2001-2007, if you take into account subprime loans, derivatives, etc., there was tens of trillions of dollars of new money "created" by banks. The fed is a small party in this game with its 2 trillion in new money. As a result, the inflationary boom that Mr. Schiff preaches about endlessly actually died with the collapse of endless credit where people could spend without any regard for their income.

All the Fed's quantitative easing will do is simply slow down the deflationary forces (i.e. imagine what would have happened to oil prices had Goldman/Morgan been allowed to fail in October).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111857-peter-schiff-outlook-for-the-gold-market?source=feed#comment-336375 336375
1. The deflationary forces from the current de-leveraging are far larger than the quantative easing that the Fed can do. In the last year, we've lost nearly 20 trillion in global equity valuations, not counting the several trillion in global real estate assets, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, etc etc etc. The fed even on its best days may be able to only inject 2-3 trillion/yr into the system. what they are doing is basically trying to fill a bathtub with a squirt gun.

2. Gold investing has been a leveraged activity over the past 18-24 months. Look at all of the Gold ETFs. They basically allow investors who never buy a single ounce of gold to partake in the price action. ETFs are now the fourth largest holder of gold supplies. If there is any serious hiccup in these entities, forced liquidations could cause the ETFs to flood the market with gold.

3. There is no replacement currency for the dollar. The ECB has proven that they are ass backwards in their thinking, the Japanese are still having problems with deflation, the Chinese are corrupt as hell and their banks are burdened with trillions of dollars of non-performing loans from the communist days, and we've all seen what's happened to Russia lately.

4. The Chinese consumer is not powerful enough to rescue the world economy. The average Chinese person earns roughly $2,100/yr and the average American earns $50,000. This means that the Chinese guy must increase his marginal income nearly 24x to hit the same level that the American guy is at. In order to get there, either that guy needs to earn 24x as much or the dollar needs to depreciate 97-99%. None of those things are likely to happen.

5. COMMODITIES were all a bubble and are not likely to reflate anytime soon. I'd expect this to happen only when all of the commodity bulls give up and go play somewhere else (which given the current CNBC offerings of advice will be a while).]]> Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:42:42 -0500
1. The deflationary forces from the current de-leveraging are far larger than the quantative easing that the Fed can do. In the last year, we've lost nearly 20 trillion in global equity valuations, not counting the several trillion in global real estate assets, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, etc etc etc. The fed even on its best days may be able to only inject 2-3 trillion/yr into the system. what they are doing is basically trying to fill a bathtub with a squirt gun.

2. Gold investing has been a leveraged activity over the past 18-24 months. Look at all of the Gold ETFs. They basically allow investors who never buy a single ounce of gold to partake in the price action. ETFs are now the fourth largest holder of gold supplies. If there is any serious hiccup in these entities, forced liquidations could cause the ETFs to flood the market with gold.

3. There is no replacement currency for the dollar. The ECB has proven that they are ass backwards in their thinking, the Japanese are still having problems with deflation, the Chinese are corrupt as hell and their banks are burdened with trillions of dollars of non-performing loans from the communist days, and we've all seen what's happened to Russia lately.

4. The Chinese consumer is not powerful enough to rescue the world economy. The average Chinese person earns roughly $2,100/yr and the average American earns $50,000. This means that the Chinese guy must increase his marginal income nearly 24x to hit the same level that the American guy is at. In order to get there, either that guy needs to earn 24x as much or the dollar needs to depreciate 97-99%. None of those things are likely to happen.

5. COMMODITIES were all a bubble and are not likely to reflate anytime soon. I'd expect this to happen only when all of the commodity bulls give up and go play somewhere else (which given the current CNBC offerings of advice will be a while).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109582-own-gold-time-to-fold?source=feed#comment-329617 329617
One of the largest holders of gold are gold ETFs. Given that these are financial instruments created by complex securities backed by deriviatives and default swaps on futures exchanges, I expect all hell to break loose within these trading instruments.

Watch out if the streetracks Gold ETF has to liquidate its gold stores or any of these other large trading vehicles. This is the supply shock I'd be concerned about, not government liquidations.

As for watching the CRB and Jim Rogers/Boone Pickens/Matt Simmons/OPEC getting proven increasingly wrong every single day...all I have to say is that it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:12:44 -0500
One of the largest holders of gold are gold ETFs. Given that these are financial instruments created by complex securities backed by deriviatives and default swaps on futures exchanges, I expect all hell to break loose within these trading instruments.

Watch out if the streetracks Gold ETF has to liquidate its gold stores or any of these other large trading vehicles. This is the supply shock I'd be concerned about, not government liquidations.

As for watching the CRB and Jim Rogers/Boone Pickens/Matt Simmons/OPEC getting proven increasingly wrong every single day...all I have to say is that it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110001-think-the-commodities-mining-boom-is-over-insiders-don-t?source=feed#comment-326717 326717
Phase I of the bubble bursting is denial]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:53:08 -0500
Phase I of the bubble bursting is denial]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110229-oil-won-t-stay-down-for-long?source=feed#comment-326711 326711
want to talk about your earlier predictions about how oil wasn't a bubble?

Once again, you are wrong.

Readers: If you followed this guy's advice over the past year, you'd be down 65% over the last 6 months, just like Boone Pickens.

This is just another commodity bubble guy who wishes for the good old days of $200 oil and $4 copper.]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:49:43 -0500
want to talk about your earlier predictions about how oil wasn't a bubble?

Once again, you are wrong.

Readers: If you followed this guy's advice over the past year, you'd be down 65% over the last 6 months, just like Boone Pickens.

This is just another commodity bubble guy who wishes for the good old days of $200 oil and $4 copper.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109201-deflation-fears-hearken-back-to-a-simpler-time-of-sound-money?source=feed#comment-321946 321946
1. The inflation already occured during the massive derivatives/credit bubble that occured between 2001-7. Since this bubble is now collapsing on itself, the speed at which capital/equity is being destroyed is far greater than the governments ability to pump money into the system.

Since October of last year, world stock markets have plunged by some $22 trillion dollars in market value, not to mention the collapse in global real estate values, derivatives, credit default swaps, etc.. This is a FAR FAR FAR FAR greater number than the $2-3 trillion of "stimulation" that the Fed is providing right now.


2. Commodities were a bubble with a capital B. If you followed Jim Rogers and T.Boone pickens advice one year ago, you'd be down 50% on your investments. I'm not much of a genius, but the S&P has so far outperformed all of the commodity gurus.

I fully expect Gold to collapse under its own weight once these leveraged ETFs start having to sell due to the credit crunch. Given that gold ETFs are the third biggest holder of gold in the world, once they have to liquidate all hell will break loose.

]]> Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:34:57 -0500
1. The inflation already occured during the massive derivatives/credit bubble that occured between 2001-7. Since this bubble is now collapsing on itself, the speed at which capital/equity is being destroyed is far greater than the governments ability to pump money into the system.

Since October of last year, world stock markets have plunged by some $22 trillion dollars in market value, not to mention the collapse in global real estate values, derivatives, credit default swaps, etc.. This is a FAR FAR FAR FAR greater number than the $2-3 trillion of "stimulation" that the Fed is providing right now.


2. Commodities were a bubble with a capital B. If you followed Jim Rogers and T.Boone pickens advice one year ago, you'd be down 50% on your investments. I'm not much of a genius, but the S&P has so far outperformed all of the commodity gurus.

I fully expect Gold to collapse under its own weight once these leveraged ETFs start having to sell due to the credit crunch. Given that gold ETFs are the third biggest holder of gold in the world, once they have to liquidate all hell will break loose.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105822-iea-report-predicts-oil-supply-crunch?source=feed#comment-306471 306471
I am Exxon Mobil and I just invested 4 billion in a new oil field. Prices plummet and my oil field development is 75% done. I will do:

A. Stop building out my infrastructure and do nothing. All of my 4 billion has gone down the toilet

B. Finish the development program. Yes I lose some money but I lose alot more by stopping work.

Hmmm...I'd pick B.

Ok...time for scenario 2....

I am Venezuela and I need $90 oil to survive. It is now worth $55. I do:

A. Cut my oil investments back and watch my govt revenue go down the toilet even more than what has happened from the market.

Or...

B. Invest in new production. Yes I might not make a big profit, but at least I have money flowing into the system.

The point of this analysis is that lower prices is NOT going to stop investment but will intensify investment in already existing projects. Exploration will probably slow down but NOC and IOC are going to be desperate to develop resources to at least capture some of the losses in price appreciation through VOLUME.

In other words for those of your who are looking for a reflation....LOOK OUT BELOW]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:49:48 -0500
I am Exxon Mobil and I just invested 4 billion in a new oil field. Prices plummet and my oil field development is 75% done. I will do:

A. Stop building out my infrastructure and do nothing. All of my 4 billion has gone down the toilet

B. Finish the development program. Yes I lose some money but I lose alot more by stopping work.

Hmmm...I'd pick B.

Ok...time for scenario 2....

I am Venezuela and I need $90 oil to survive. It is now worth $55. I do:

A. Cut my oil investments back and watch my govt revenue go down the toilet even more than what has happened from the market.

Or...

B. Invest in new production. Yes I might not make a big profit, but at least I have money flowing into the system.

The point of this analysis is that lower prices is NOT going to stop investment but will intensify investment in already existing projects. Exploration will probably slow down but NOC and IOC are going to be desperate to develop resources to at least capture some of the losses in price appreciation through VOLUME.

In other words for those of your who are looking for a reflation....LOOK OUT BELOW]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/94618-options-trader-tuesday-outlook?source=feed#comment-249831 249831
Long time no speak. Glad to see that you were right on this horsecrap that was the oil market.

My real comment was on the wonderful "objective" CNBC. Oil corrects 50% and production is slated to increase 5-7% over the next two years and CNBC is hooting their peak oil horn and running their ads that likens oil to the Dodo Bird and the dinosaurs in that oil will soon be extinct and that its a certainty.

I'm seriously considering filing a lawsuit against NBC Universal over representing an unproven theory as fact and using their access to the markets to manipulate prices]]> Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:38:20 -0400
Long time no speak. Glad to see that you were right on this horsecrap that was the oil market.

My real comment was on the wonderful "objective" CNBC. Oil corrects 50% and production is slated to increase 5-7% over the next two years and CNBC is hooting their peak oil horn and running their ads that likens oil to the Dodo Bird and the dinosaurs in that oil will soon be extinct and that its a certainty.

I'm seriously considering filing a lawsuit against NBC Universal over representing an unproven theory as fact and using their access to the markets to manipulate prices]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/87195-commodity-prices-are-speculators-to-blame?source=feed#comment-215711 215711
www.businessweek.com/t...


I have more of a moderate view of this. The bubble exists, but speculation (not speculators) is definitely inflating this thing. There is more demand for financial derivatives related to oil than there is for the actual commodity (this is why there are 10-15x more oil contracts traded than oil that actually exists).

While I am not for position limits (if Goldman/Morgan want to speculate themselves out of business, be my guest), the lack of clarity in the oil market and the clear breach of investment banks now playing in the physical market (Morgan is the largest heating oil distributor in the US) is a signficant problem. Will these measures bring down the price? I'm not really sure, but we need to know what's going on.

One of the biggest bull arguments posited is that it is increasingly more expensive to find oil now than before. I disagree from a technical standpoint. What has gotten more expensive is oil services because there are now more people trying to drill for oil than service operators. This is a condition that will improve over time b/c service operators (like contractors during the housing bubble) will expand their fleet of rigs/boats/etc, driving the cost of equipment and eventually the replacement cost for oil down.

As for the "Wall of Worry" comment, I heard that same bunk 10 months ago when the Dow hit 14,000.

]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:42:16 -0400
www.businessweek.com/t...


I have more of a moderate view of this. The bubble exists, but speculation (not speculators) is definitely inflating this thing. There is more demand for financial derivatives related to oil than there is for the actual commodity (this is why there are 10-15x more oil contracts traded than oil that actually exists).

While I am not for position limits (if Goldman/Morgan want to speculate themselves out of business, be my guest), the lack of clarity in the oil market and the clear breach of investment banks now playing in the physical market (Morgan is the largest heating oil distributor in the US) is a signficant problem. Will these measures bring down the price? I'm not really sure, but we need to know what's going on.

One of the biggest bull arguments posited is that it is increasingly more expensive to find oil now than before. I disagree from a technical standpoint. What has gotten more expensive is oil services because there are now more people trying to drill for oil than service operators. This is a condition that will improve over time b/c service operators (like contractors during the housing bubble) will expand their fleet of rigs/boats/etc, driving the cost of equipment and eventually the replacement cost for oil down.

As for the "Wall of Worry" comment, I heard that same bunk 10 months ago when the Dow hit 14,000.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83157-as-global-demand-rises-oil-production-remains-flat?source=feed#comment-195982 195982
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/s...

Figure 3a: International Supply and Consumption.

Bodman needs to go read the statistcal informtion produced by his own agency.

Supply is up about 2% year over year from last year. So before you go publishing your bs about how oil production is flat and no new supplies are coming,go get educated smart guy.]]> Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:51 -0400
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/s...

Figure 3a: International Supply and Consumption.

Bodman needs to go read the statistcal informtion produced by his own agency.

Supply is up about 2% year over year from last year. So before you go publishing your bs about how oil production is flat and no new supplies are coming,go get educated smart guy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82448-even-the-gas-crisis-needs-a-culprit?source=feed#comment-195283 195283
1. CFTC data is incomplete and does not include the people that have actually left the NYMEX to go trade on the ICE.
2. Speculation is a problem because there is no incentive for people to actually purchase the oil.

What needs to happen (in order to get rid of this) is 4 things:

1. Have recourse for cancelling or rolling forward all oil contracts. So if you decide to cancel your August contract and move it to september, you lose your margin. Similar rules should be put in on the short side too (I'm not one sided about this).

If this was employed, it would really change the risk/reward ratio of oil investing without taking delivery. So if you're on the long side and your contract comes due and you decide to roll it forward, you just lost your initial investment. If you decide to take delivery, more power to you.

2. Any publicly traded company or pension fund that clears OTC swaps in the US that gets caught on an unregulated exchange faces fines of millions of dollars/day/violation. If the ICE was regulated, its still ok to trade on the ICE.

3. Separate the functions of clearing a transaction from loaning money to an investor to go bet on oil futures. What Goldman and Co. do is lend money to the investor to take the long side, clear the OTC derivative trade, and then take the short side themselves. This enables the i-bank to win b/c they know that these guys can't actually take delivery of the oil.

This can be stopped by requiring that the guys who clear the contract can't loan the investor money. So, I don't have a problem with the above transaction taking place if Goldman was clearing the swap, JP Morgan was lending the investor the money to invest, and Morgan Stanley took the short side of the deal.
But to have the same investment bank do all three things is a tradgedy.


]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:27:47 -0400
1. CFTC data is incomplete and does not include the people that have actually left the NYMEX to go trade on the ICE.
2. Speculation is a problem because there is no incentive for people to actually purchase the oil.

What needs to happen (in order to get rid of this) is 4 things:

1. Have recourse for cancelling or rolling forward all oil contracts. So if you decide to cancel your August contract and move it to september, you lose your margin. Similar rules should be put in on the short side too (I'm not one sided about this).

If this was employed, it would really change the risk/reward ratio of oil investing without taking delivery. So if you're on the long side and your contract comes due and you decide to roll it forward, you just lost your initial investment. If you decide to take delivery, more power to you.

2. Any publicly traded company or pension fund that clears OTC swaps in the US that gets caught on an unregulated exchange faces fines of millions of dollars/day/violation. If the ICE was regulated, its still ok to trade on the ICE.

3. Separate the functions of clearing a transaction from loaning money to an investor to go bet on oil futures. What Goldman and Co. do is lend money to the investor to take the long side, clear the OTC derivative trade, and then take the short side themselves. This enables the i-bank to win b/c they know that these guys can't actually take delivery of the oil.

This can be stopped by requiring that the guys who clear the contract can't loan the investor money. So, I don't have a problem with the above transaction taking place if Goldman was clearing the swap, JP Morgan was lending the investor the money to invest, and Morgan Stanley took the short side of the deal.
But to have the same investment bank do all three things is a tradgedy.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82510-options-trader-tuesday-outlook?source=feed#comment-192210 192210
Just a few thoughts on some of your earlier posts.

The whole point of oil futures, like options, is to allow for producers and consumers to come together and trade oil.

In a contract in any other industry, when you enter into a contract, one person buys oil, the other person sells. If one party defaults on the agreement (which is basically what rolling the contract forward is), then they owe the other side of the transaction their entire deposit. If the producer defaults on the deal, then they are responsible for paying recourse to the buyer. End of story.

This is how real estate, buying a car off of a factory line, major purchases by industrial users, and conceptually how a futures contract should work. If there is no recourse (penalties for breaching a contract), the entire market is a complete fraud because both sides of the transaction could be lying through their teeth.

The game is completely disconnected from economic reality. It's basically like me selling you a 5 star hotel I don't own that you won't buy, and then the entire hotel industry uses that pricing as a basis to set the rents on their buildings. This game would work for awhile until all of the sudden supply and demand catch up to you. Sound familiar?

The Enron loophole allowed parties to enter into bilateral agreements between parties that don't have any crude oil between them which have then been used as market comparables for the pricing services(Platts, etc.).

These issues are easily regulated without really impacting the "free market", margin requirements, position limits, etc.:

1. Recourse for the other party in a cancelled future contract. If buyer rolls the contract, seller gets his margin. If the seller cancels out of their deal to sell oil, buyer gets a recourse fee.


2. Any publicly traded company that clears OTC trade swaps on a non-approved market will face fines of several millions of dollars/transaction per dayl.


3. The buyer and seller must use an independent clearing house for oil futures transactions. This would stop the conflicts of interest where goldman acts as the seller, takes a fee for clearing the contract, and then loans the money to the buyer for the contract.

4. The independent clearing house can not loan money to either party to complete the transaction.

These are pretty simple benign changes, but it would fix the issues of non-recourse contracts.]]> Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:40:47 -0400
Just a few thoughts on some of your earlier posts.

The whole point of oil futures, like options, is to allow for producers and consumers to come together and trade oil.

In a contract in any other industry, when you enter into a contract, one person buys oil, the other person sells. If one party defaults on the agreement (which is basically what rolling the contract forward is), then they owe the other side of the transaction their entire deposit. If the producer defaults on the deal, then they are responsible for paying recourse to the buyer. End of story.

This is how real estate, buying a car off of a factory line, major purchases by industrial users, and conceptually how a futures contract should work. If there is no recourse (penalties for breaching a contract), the entire market is a complete fraud because both sides of the transaction could be lying through their teeth.

The game is completely disconnected from economic reality. It's basically like me selling you a 5 star hotel I don't own that you won't buy, and then the entire hotel industry uses that pricing as a basis to set the rents on their buildings. This game would work for awhile until all of the sudden supply and demand catch up to you. Sound familiar?

The Enron loophole allowed parties to enter into bilateral agreements between parties that don't have any crude oil between them which have then been used as market comparables for the pricing services(Platts, etc.).

These issues are easily regulated without really impacting the "free market", margin requirements, position limits, etc.:

1. Recourse for the other party in a cancelled future contract. If buyer rolls the contract, seller gets his margin. If the seller cancels out of their deal to sell oil, buyer gets a recourse fee.


2. Any publicly traded company that clears OTC trade swaps on a non-approved market will face fines of several millions of dollars/transaction per dayl.


3. The buyer and seller must use an independent clearing house for oil futures transactions. This would stop the conflicts of interest where goldman acts as the seller, takes a fee for clearing the contract, and then loans the money to the buyer for the contract.

4. The independent clearing house can not loan money to either party to complete the transaction.

These are pretty simple benign changes, but it would fix the issues of non-recourse contracts.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80923-crude-where-s-the-demand-destruction?source=feed#comment-183483 183483
1. China is building a very large SPR system like we have here
2. They are trying to increase their forward cover ahead of the Olympics.

I don't think that the Chinese drivers are using 25% more than last month. It has more to do with inventory accumulation and less with increased demand]]> Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:02:45 -0400
1. China is building a very large SPR system like we have here
2. They are trying to increase their forward cover ahead of the Olympics.

I don't think that the Chinese drivers are using 25% more than last month. It has more to do with inventory accumulation and less with increased demand]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80560-options-trader-monday-outlook?source=feed#comment-182605 182605 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:21:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/80569-oil-this-isn-t-a-bubble?source=feed#comment-182260 182260
omrpublic.iea.org/

IEA said that in the most recent quarter, OECD supplies fell by approximately 8 million barrels with a 53.4 day cover. Inventory levels are ABOVE AVERAGE.

If we had this structural shortage that Wall Street and this guy thinks actually exists (like a 1.7 million barrel/day shortfall), our inventory levels would be down nearly 30-60 million barrels/month. Sorry man, nice try.]]> Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:43:33 -0400
omrpublic.iea.org/

IEA said that in the most recent quarter, OECD supplies fell by approximately 8 million barrels with a 53.4 day cover. Inventory levels are ABOVE AVERAGE.

If we had this structural shortage that Wall Street and this guy thinks actually exists (like a 1.7 million barrel/day shortfall), our inventory levels would be down nearly 30-60 million barrels/month. Sorry man, nice try.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80560-options-trader-monday-outlook?source=feed#comment-182224 182224
-China's runaway demand: I don't see how a country (who even with subsidies has prices at $2.80/gal) where " upper middle class" is defined as $1,000/month can afford to spend that kind of coin on gasoline to exponentially grow the automobile market (that works out to about 10% of pre-tax income on gasoline at those prices for the rich chinamen, compared with 4-5% for the poor American shlub). The Chinese miracle is about to be completely undone by their manipulation because they are in a lose-lose scenario with their currency for two reasons:

1. If they keep the yuan artificially low, they will have inflation rates that exceed the nominal GDP growth (which they already have at 10% inflation and 9% growth). This creates major instability in the poorer regions as workers demand higher wages to compensate, thereby decreasing profitability of outsourcing.

2. If they let the yuan appreciate, then they become too expensive to be used as exporters. Since the Chinese do not have the education system (they have NO top universities by most measures) and protection of IP to transform to a high tech society, they lose their major employment base. High unemployment leads to the unwinding of the Chinese miracle.


Historically, during commodity booms, the bulls underestimate the supply response from producers. This time is not different in that there is a MASSIVE resource base in a diverse area to accomodate supply growth (Brazil, Ghana, India's Rajasthan field, China's Bohai Bay, Mexico's Chicanotepec, US's GOM & Bakken, Canada's Artic zone, Eastern Russia, Lukoil's 4 billion barrel discovery in the Caspian, new recent finds in the North Sea from the UK and Norway, Saudi Arabia's recent discovery this year adjacent to Ghawar as indicated in Aramco's annual report, supermajor fields in Iran and Iraq that are known but not yet tapped). I know I'm missing a few more. Even Goldman Sachs super-spike guys do not subscribe to the peak oil theory per the Barron's article.

We have not dealt with the real drivers of this market and until we do nothing will change:

1. Fed's cheap money policy
2. Reckless speculation: It's not surprising that as soon as the CFTC even started to look into the ICE, Goldman & co. threatened to move to Dubai. That could be shot down real fast with a few simple measures like huge fines ($100,000,000 per day per violation) for any company doing business in the US that trades on unregulated trading platforms. The game would be over real fast if that happened.


]]> Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:08:26 -0400
-China's runaway demand: I don't see how a country (who even with subsidies has prices at $2.80/gal) where " upper middle class" is defined as $1,000/month can afford to spend that kind of coin on gasoline to exponentially grow the automobile market (that works out to about 10% of pre-tax income on gasoline at those prices for the rich chinamen, compared with 4-5% for the poor American shlub). The Chinese miracle is about to be completely undone by their manipulation because they are in a lose-lose scenario with their currency for two reasons:

1. If they keep the yuan artificially low, they will have inflation rates that exceed the nominal GDP growth (which they already have at 10% inflation and 9% growth). This creates major instability in the poorer regions as workers demand higher wages to compensate, thereby decreasing profitability of outsourcing.

2. If they let the yuan appreciate, then they become too expensive to be used as exporters. Since the Chinese do not have the education system (they have NO top universities by most measures) and protection of IP to transform to a high tech society, they lose their major employment base. High unemployment leads to the unwinding of the Chinese miracle.


Historically, during commodity booms, the bulls underestimate the supply response from producers. This time is not different in that there is a MASSIVE resource base in a diverse area to accomodate supply growth (Brazil, Ghana, India's Rajasthan field, China's Bohai Bay, Mexico's Chicanotepec, US's GOM & Bakken, Canada's Artic zone, Eastern Russia, Lukoil's 4 billion barrel discovery in the Caspian, new recent finds in the North Sea from the UK and Norway, Saudi Arabia's recent discovery this year adjacent to Ghawar as indicated in Aramco's annual report, supermajor fields in Iran and Iraq that are known but not yet tapped). I know I'm missing a few more. Even Goldman Sachs super-spike guys do not subscribe to the peak oil theory per the Barron's article.

We have not dealt with the real drivers of this market and until we do nothing will change:

1. Fed's cheap money policy
2. Reckless speculation: It's not surprising that as soon as the CFTC even started to look into the ICE, Goldman & co. threatened to move to Dubai. That could be shot down real fast with a few simple measures like huge fines ($100,000,000 per day per violation) for any company doing business in the US that trades on unregulated trading platforms. The game would be over real fast if that happened.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80211-options-trader-thursday-outlook?source=feed#comment-180090 180090
I'm a little bit confused. Help me out here.

Jim Rogers (one of my favorite commodity perma bulls b/c of the bowtie that makes him look like pee-wee herman) is on the rampage about how oil's record run is years away from ending. Ok typical bs out of that guy.

But literally in the next sentence, this dorkhead then said that he's purchasing airline stocks all over the world because they can't go down any farther since they are basically bankrupt.

www.bloomberg.com/apps...


Now, I'm a little bit of an amateur market watcher but how in the hell is the airline industry supposed to survive in an oil market that goes up up and up forever??? If $125 oil is a crisis to the airline industry, what do you think 200 or 300 dollar oil would do to it?

The bullshit train just keeps going

BTW...since all of the developing world economies can afford oil at $125 as the oil bulls so proudly complain, then why is Pakistan buying oil on a deferred payment plan?

www.bloomberg.com/apps...
]]> Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:58:17 -0400
I'm a little bit confused. Help me out here.

Jim Rogers (one of my favorite commodity perma bulls b/c of the bowtie that makes him look like pee-wee herman) is on the rampage about how oil's record run is years away from ending. Ok typical bs out of that guy.

But literally in the next sentence, this dorkhead then said that he's purchasing airline stocks all over the world because they can't go down any farther since they are basically bankrupt.

www.bloomberg.com/apps...


Now, I'm a little bit of an amateur market watcher but how in the hell is the airline industry supposed to survive in an oil market that goes up up and up forever??? If $125 oil is a crisis to the airline industry, what do you think 200 or 300 dollar oil would do to it?

The bullshit train just keeps going

BTW...since all of the developing world economies can afford oil at $125 as the oil bulls so proudly complain, then why is Pakistan buying oil on a deferred payment plan?

www.bloomberg.com/apps...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79730-options-trader-monday-outlook?source=feed#comment-178324 178324
His comments are about as unbiased/meritless as George Bush saying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. ]]> Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:14:41 -0400
His comments are about as unbiased/meritless as George Bush saying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79520-options-trader-friday-outlook?source=feed#comment-177037 177037
When they decide to actually discuss speculation in the oil market, they brought in Hirsch of the Hirsch report in 2005 that warned of impending peak oil. With all due respect to him, if you look up his bio (former Exxon Mobil guy, now with "Management Information Services", a company that doesn't have any profile whatsoever) you'll realize that he's part of "Dick Cheney oil fraternity", which also happens to include our good friend Matt Simmons (who's wonderful investment bank has never represented an oil major in any transaction in it's 3 decades of existence), Boone Pickens (who was such a shitty oil man that he decided to start his own hedge fund), and the other "Peak oil prognosticators". This clearly detracts from the discussion about what is really going on in the oil market and how the hedge funds are operating (and they never talk about this ever).

Matt "There's no speculation in the oil market" Simmons clearly demonstrates with the following article that he is a complete hypocrite who's opinion should not be trusted.

www.simmonsco-intl.com...

Here's the cliff notes version:

In the late 1990s, the price of oil was tanking with ample supply. Matt Simmons, in his ultimate wisdom, argued that speculators basically were artifically pushing down the price of oil and were more important as price determinants than fundamentals b/c of their large sums of money.

Fast forward to today, there's now ALOT more money from hedge funds, large investors, investment banks trading the physical oil and purchasing tanks to manipulate supply/demand data for futures trading, and at least two new deregulated dark trading platforms in the oil market, but in Mr. Simmons mind there is less speculation now than there was in 1998? I guess he's totally missed the boat on the following energy trading scandals in the last 5 years (and these are the ones we know about:

Enron
El Paso
Amaranth
BP's cornering of the propane market
Two other hedge funds getting busted for manipulating the gasoline market

And while this one wasn't illegal:

Goldman Sachs' rebalancing of it's Commodity Index that tanked the price of gasoline overnight.


]]> Fri, 30 May 2008 18:30:20 -0400
When they decide to actually discuss speculation in the oil market, they brought in Hirsch of the Hirsch report in 2005 that warned of impending peak oil. With all due respect to him, if you look up his bio (former Exxon Mobil guy, now with "Management Information Services", a company that doesn't have any profile whatsoever) you'll realize that he's part of "Dick Cheney oil fraternity", which also happens to include our good friend Matt Simmons (who's wonderful investment bank has never represented an oil major in any transaction in it's 3 decades of existence), Boone Pickens (who was such a shitty oil man that he decided to start his own hedge fund), and the other "Peak oil prognosticators". This clearly detracts from the discussion about what is really going on in the oil market and how the hedge funds are operating (and they never talk about this ever).

Matt "There's no speculation in the oil market" Simmons clearly demonstrates with the following article that he is a complete hypocrite who's opinion should not be trusted.

www.simmonsco-intl.com...

Here's the cliff notes version:

In the late 1990s, the price of oil was tanking with ample supply. Matt Simmons, in his ultimate wisdom, argued that speculators basically were artifically pushing down the price of oil and were more important as price determinants than fundamentals b/c of their large sums of money.

Fast forward to today, there's now ALOT more money from hedge funds, large investors, investment banks trading the physical oil and purchasing tanks to manipulate supply/demand data for futures trading, and at least two new deregulated dark trading platforms in the oil market, but in Mr. Simmons mind there is less speculation now than there was in 1998? I guess he's totally missed the boat on the following energy trading scandals in the last 5 years (and these are the ones we know about:

Enron
El Paso
Amaranth
BP's cornering of the propane market
Two other hedge funds getting busted for manipulating the gasoline market

And while this one wasn't illegal:

Goldman Sachs' rebalancing of it's Commodity Index that tanked the price of gasoline overnight.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79160-options-trader-wednesday-outlook?source=feed#comment-175442 175442 Wed, 28 May 2008 15:27:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/78440-the-oil-shortage-and-other-fairy-tales?source=feed#comment-173377 173377
User 199286, since you're such a data driven person, I'll be happy to connect the dots for you with evidence, as you so eloquently put it.

Much of the declines in the non-OPEC areas (Norway, US, Mexico) can largely be attributed to a lack of investment in oil infrastructure b/c oil was really really cheap back then. I'm not advocating $10 oil again, but $135 is a HUGE stretch given the fundamentals

1. The US has the Gulf of Mexico, Bakken, ANWAR and the Continental Shelf. While ANWAR and the Continental Shelf are off limits, the other two are certainly not. These fields are currently being developed.

2. Norway: Statoil has made several discoveries in the past couple of years in the North Sea but b/c of a lack of equipment has not been able to develop them. Also, major exploration has begun in the Barents Sea.

3. Mexico: While Cantarell is declining, much of the decline is due to a lack of investment in the field. In addition to that field, Pemex is increasing production at a field called Ku-Maloob-Zeep and they have another gigantic field called Chicanotepec with nearly 139 Billion barrels of oil. Once again, this is an investment issue NOT a reserves issue.

One of the points of evidence that peak oil proponents use to show that Saudi Arabia is in trouble is that they have increased their oil rig count by a third in the last few years. HOWEVER, what these folks forget to mention is that the Saudi's are developing the 500k/day Kurais field and the 1.2 mb/day Kursanyah field RIGHT NOW as well as several other development projects to increase their productivity to 12.5 million/day. Combine those two projects with increased exploration and I think the rig count increase makes complete sense.

As for the 2 million barrel shortfall that doesn't exist...I suggest you go take a look at the IEA's latest production figures that show a total production of 87.3 million barrels/day since Q12008 with demand for the year of 86.8 million. This makes alot more sense given that there are oil tankers sitting around all over the world waiting to unload crude and that there isn't a supply shortage anywhere.

As for the peak oil oracle Boone Pickens, I'd be happy to send you links from major news outlets him claiming that we hit peak oil in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, etc.

And for the other peak oil oracle Matt Simmons and how he doesn't believe that speculators influence the price of oil, I suggest you go take a look at this article he wrote in 1998 talking about how hedge funds in Europe deliberately ran down the price of crude oil and how they were more powerful forces than supply/demand. If you read this, you'll see that he's a complete hypocrite. In his world, when the price falls its speculation and when the price goes up its supply and demand.

www.simmonsco-intl.com...


Mr. Davis- I agree with you and your points about the NYMEX. However, I'm afraid to say that we can't undo opening the Enron loophole in 2000. Dubai and other countries will just set up new exchanges offshore if we try to regulate oil market speculation here. We can't stop the oil bubble unless we stop the underlying reasons for people to speculate in oil futures.

Even given all of this fundamental information that suggest we are not on the precipice of an oil shortage, we have not yet hit the top of the oil bubble yet.

Every other bubble bursting (NASDAQ, housing, the 2006 oil correction) was preceded by a significant increase in the federal funds rate that wiped out the overly cheap money. We don't have that going right now. When you see the Fed Funds rate above 5%, expect a major correction in oil within 3-4 months, but not before then.

Unfortunately, when this bubble bursts, the consequences will not be pretty. Goldman, Merril, and others are counterparties to TRILLIONS of dollars of unfunded commodity derivatives. If any of their hedge/pension fund pals walk away from their highly leveraged bets on crude oil in significant numbers, the collapse of these structured investments will make the subprime/credit bubble explosion look like a cherry bomb in a toilet.

The commodity bubble of the last 6 months has everything to do with the Fed's reckless policy of trying to save the investment banking community at the expense of everyone else. "Peak everything" is too simplistic of an explanation for what is going on right now.
]]> Sun, 25 May 2008 02:34:54 -0400
User 199286, since you're such a data driven person, I'll be happy to connect the dots for you with evidence, as you so eloquently put it.

Much of the declines in the non-OPEC areas (Norway, US, Mexico) can largely be attributed to a lack of investment in oil infrastructure b/c oil was really really cheap back then. I'm not advocating $10 oil again, but $135 is a HUGE stretch given the fundamentals

1. The US has the Gulf of Mexico, Bakken, ANWAR and the Continental Shelf. While ANWAR and the Continental Shelf are off limits, the other two are certainly not. These fields are currently being developed.

2. Norway: Statoil has made several discoveries in the past couple of years in the North Sea but b/c of a lack of equipment has not been able to develop them. Also, major exploration has begun in the Barents Sea.

3. Mexico: While Cantarell is declining, much of the decline is due to a lack of investment in the field. In addition to that field, Pemex is increasing production at a field called Ku-Maloob-Zeep and they have another gigantic field called Chicanotepec with nearly 139 Billion barrels of oil. Once again, this is an investment issue NOT a reserves issue.

One of the points of evidence that peak oil proponents use to show that Saudi Arabia is in trouble is that they have increased their oil rig count by a third in the last few years. HOWEVER, what these folks forget to mention is that the Saudi's are developing the 500k/day Kurais field and the 1.2 mb/day Kursanyah field RIGHT NOW as well as several other development projects to increase their productivity to 12.5 million/day. Combine those two projects with increased exploration and I think the rig count increase makes complete sense.

As for the 2 million barrel shortfall that doesn't exist...I suggest you go take a look at the IEA's latest production figures that show a total production of 87.3 million barrels/day since Q12008 with demand for the year of 86.8 million. This makes alot more sense given that there are oil tankers sitting around all over the world waiting to unload crude and that there isn't a supply shortage anywhere.

As for the peak oil oracle Boone Pickens, I'd be happy to send you links from major news outlets him claiming that we hit peak oil in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, etc.

And for the other peak oil oracle Matt Simmons and how he doesn't believe that speculators influence the price of oil, I suggest you go take a look at this article he wrote in 1998 talking about how hedge funds in Europe deliberately ran down the price of crude oil and how they were more powerful forces than supply/demand. If you read this, you'll see that he's a complete hypocrite. In his world, when the price falls its speculation and when the price goes up its supply and demand.

www.simmonsco-intl.com...


Mr. Davis- I agree with you and your points about the NYMEX. However, I'm afraid to say that we can't undo opening the Enron loophole in 2000. Dubai and other countries will just set up new exchanges offshore if we try to regulate oil market speculation here. We can't stop the oil bubble unless we stop the underlying reasons for people to speculate in oil futures.

Even given all of this fundamental information that suggest we are not on the precipice of an oil shortage, we have not yet hit the top of the oil bubble yet.

Every other bubble bursting (NASDAQ, housing, the 2006 oil correction) was preceded by a significant increase in the federal funds rate that wiped out the overly cheap money. We don't have that going right now. When you see the Fed Funds rate above 5%, expect a major correction in oil within 3-4 months, but not before then.

Unfortunately, when this bubble bursts, the consequences will not be pretty. Goldman, Merril, and others are counterparties to TRILLIONS of dollars of unfunded commodity derivatives. If any of their hedge/pension fund pals walk away from their highly leveraged bets on crude oil in significant numbers, the collapse of these structured investments will make the subprime/credit bubble explosion look like a cherry bomb in a toilet.

The commodity bubble of the last 6 months has everything to do with the Fed's reckless policy of trying to save the investment banking community at the expense of everyone else. "Peak everything" is too simplistic of an explanation for what is going on right now.
]]>