Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For those of you wondering what makes gas cost so much all of a sudden...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For those of you wondering what makes gas cost so much all of a sudden...

    Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say

    Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told



    By Rex Nutting & Michael Kitchen, MarketWatch
    Last update: 2:15 p.m. EDT June 23, 2008
    Comments: 469




    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.


    Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.
    Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.
    Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets.
    "Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."
    "Energy speculation has become a growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the full committee. "We need to consider a full range of options to counter this rapacious speculation."
    There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.
    Dingell introduced a bill on June 11 that would ask the Energy Department to gather the facts on energy prices, including the role played by speculators. See full story.
    There are two kinds of speculators in the futures markets, Masters said. Traditional speculators are those who need to hedge because they actually take physical possession of the commodities. Index speculators, on the other hand, are merely allocating a portion of their portfolio to commodity futures.
    Index speculation damages price-discovery mechanisms provided by futures markets provide, Masters added
    The committee will likely consider legislation that would rein in index speculation by imposing higher-margin requirements; setting position limits for speculators; requiring more disclosure of positions; and preventing pension funds and investment banks from owning commodities.
    Both major presidential candidates have supported closing loopholes that encourage speculation in the energy markets. Read more on Election Blog.
    However, other witnesses said that pure speculators have had little impact on energy prices, which have doubled in the past year to about $135 per barrel. Both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman have dismissed the impact of speculators on prices paid by consumers.
    Speculators now account for about 70% of all benchmark crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000, said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the investigations subcommittee. Stupak introduced a bill on Friday that would limit index speculation.
    There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.
    Congress, however, has grown increasingly concerned over speculative investors' role in the energy market in comparison with those buying futures contracts to hedge against risk from price changes. Lawmakers are expected to consider legislation to set strict limits -- or in some cases, an outright ban -- on speculative trading in energy futures in some markets.
    Dingell is looking into any legal loopholes that may have contributed to speculation in energy markets. In 1991, according to documents provided by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the committee's investigators, the agency authorized the first exemption from position limits for swap dealers with no physical commodity exposure. This began what Dingell said was "a process that has enabled investment banks to accumulate enormous positions in commodity markets."
    In a letter to the CFTC last week, Dingell asked the agency to disclose how many other exemptions it has provided over the years.
    Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.
    Michael Kitchen is a copy editor for MarketWatch and is based in New York.

  • #2
    I'm not generally in favor of the government getting involved in the market, but in this case, they might be averting a tulipmania-like collapse when people finally pull the pants down on these speculators. Demand is NOTHING like what would be necessary to drive these gas prices.

    Comment


    • #3
      That sounds too good to be true. What's the downside?

      Comment


      • #4
        It's called 'speculation' for a reason. If they want to drive up the price, let 'em suffer when the bubble bursts.

        Another example of calls for government to protect irresponsible rich folks from themselves in the name of the 'public good.'

        Moon

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
          It's called 'speculation' for a reason. If they want to drive up the price, let 'em suffer when the bubble bursts.

          Another example of calls for government to protect irresponsible rich folks from themselves in the name of the 'public good.'

          Moon
          ++

          I say keep the prices high. People have already started to radically change their lifestyles. Why should the government stop it?

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, some avowed 'Free Marketer' will come along any moment and remind us that if this continues as it is, the rest of us will suffer as a result of the higher fuel prices, which will make many of our other commodities more expensive and serve as a drag on the economy.

            Conversely, if it plays out like the 'Tulip Mania' scenario, it is possible that the bursting of the 'oil bubble' will have widespread economic repercussions, perhaps leading to a recession.

            Either way, we need to protect rich and stupid people from themselves in the name of the public interest.

            Moon

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ksbluesfan View Post
              That sounds too good to be true. What's the downside?
              I've said it many, many times here before: gas prices are determined more by commodity options contracts than by any other factor. Commodity contracts are legitimate ways of hedging risk for those dealing in the commodity in case of unexpected problems (sudden shortfalls, unexpected demand, etc) - what this is apparently attempting to deal with is raw speculation by those with no legitimate hedging interest, i.e. people bidding the price of oil up (the way some people swap houses in a circle, continually icreasing property prices artificially). Sooner or later, this has to collapse, and when it does (as it has for gold, silver, platinum, palladium, etc many times in the past dating back to the Dutch tulip trade), the speculators who got in late will be wiped out, and we'll be talking about government bailouts.

              The downside to just cutting it off might be to trigger that collapse immediately. That, and the government will be interfering in the market, in particular in choosing who gets to buy options futures and who doesn't. I don't like that kind of influence generally, but here it may be warranted.

              Comment


              • #8
                Won't these "speculators" just speculate in another country's stock market? Maybe someone can clear this up for me?
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
                  Well, some avowed 'Free Marketer' will come along any moment and remind us that if this continues as it is, the rest of us will suffer as a result of the higher fuel prices, which will make many of our other commodities more expensive and serve as a drag on the economy.

                  Conversely, if it plays out like the 'Tulip Mania' scenario, it is possible that the bursting of the 'oil bubble' will have widespread economic repercussions, perhaps leading to a recession.

                  Either way, we need to protect rich and stupid people from themselves in the name of the public interest.

                  Moon
                  It most assuredly will NOT protect rich and stupid people to do this. Speculators are taking risks, and in general they are large established companies, not individuals, so that when they collapse, they will cost their investors and employees their life savings and jobs, respectively. Not just rich people.

                  And I'd think reasonable people would be against artificial deformation of the market by a relative few. What we want is changed behavior having to do with energy policy, but are you really prepared to pay double what you should be to make that point?

                  If you are, I assume we won't be hearing word one from you about obscene oil company profits in the future. You're voluntarily paying them double what they'd charge without speculation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Airshark View Post
                    It most assuredly will NOT protect rich and stupid people to do this. Speculators are taking risks, and in general they are large established companies, not individuals, so that when they collapse, they will cost their investors and employees their life savings and jobs, respectively. Not just rich people.

                    And I'd think reasonable people would be against artificial deformation of the market by a relative few. What we want is changed behavior having to do with energy policy, but are you really prepared to pay double what you should be to make that point?

                    If you are, I assume we won't be hearing word one from you about obscene oil company profits in the future. You're voluntarily paying them double what they'd charge without speculation.
                    I've never complained about the profits of oil companies, so I don't know why I'd be inclined to start at some point in the future.

                    Of course, the failure of these speculators will have repercussions for the average joe. That is precisely why the government should not intervene. If the government steps in to 'deform' the market to correct a deformation by a group of investors, they do more damage by leading people to believe that there are no consequences for that type of behavior.

                    Economic downturns are not evil, nor should artificial measures be employed to keep the market from 'punishing' those who attempt to 'game' the system. Maybe if Mr. and Mrs. Main Street suffered occasionally due to this speculative shit, they might get kinda pissed and push for more focused and appropriate governmental intervention, rather than this haphazard, election year politicking that's going on now.

                    Moon

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Forty Ounce Curls View Post
                      Won't these "speculators" just speculate in another country's stock market? Maybe someone can clear this up for me?
                      Sure they will. They already do. There's no such thing as a "national" oil market. But the number of places where they can control the volumes of oil that they can in the United States is extremely limited. Nobody's going to be paying their $135/bbl prices when it's trading in Philadelphia at $65, and you can't force the US commodity hedgers to pay the higher price if you control only the market size of say, South Africa.

                      Note also that "speculators" have to hedge speculation, too. The only reason they can make money is the arbitrage opportunity provided by trading the markets off against each other. If they're denied the ability to use the largest market in the world, that much of the arbitrage opportunity goes away - and it's worse than that, because the traders in the OTHER markets they deal with will not all be speculators, and that means they will be removed from the equation by making their hedges in a market free of arbitrageurs (in the US).

                      What this will do is make oil speculation unacceptably risky (changes one of the main variables in the Black-Scholes equations), and thus the arbitrageurs will unwind their positions and dump oil. Those who hold long calls on oil at $135 will find all of them selling for pennies on the dollar. Nobody in his right mind would sell a put on expensive oil - those who already have long puts out there would face a nightmare that somebody would exercise them after oil has fallen to $60 and make an instant $75/bbl profit, so they'll have to immediately try to buy them back, pretty much regardless of price. Thinking about the kind of money involved, it's easy to see that this could blow up really, really fast - tens of billions would be lost by speculators every day if they let this kind of legislation pass without taking action. If they act immediately, they'll only lose billions. Which is quite fair, really, since they've made many billions already on the speculation. They won't take the risk - they'll unwind, quickly, take their lumps, and move on to some other arbitrage opportunity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Is this related to the "Enron Loophole"?

                        Congress Seeks to Close the 'Enron Loophole'


                        Email
                        Share

                        May 15, 2008 1:22 PM
                        ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Ken Lay has been dead almost two years and Jeffrey Skilling is several years into his 24 year prison sentence, but one legacy of the Enron era lives on.
                        It’s the "Enron loophole," which exempts energy speculators who make trades electronically from US regulation. Some argue that the unregulated energy speculation, codified in 2000, can account for $20 to $25 in the jump in oil prices.
                        But now, 8 years after energy traders were able to push legislation exempting their electronic trades of energy futures from US regulation, a measure in the Farm Bill aims to close the loophole and subject futures trades made electronically inside the United States to US law.
                        “This bill is really our best bet to deter unscrupulous traders from manipulating energy prices and engaging in excessive speculation. This has been a long, hard road – and this is a major legislative victory," Said California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein after the Senate passed the underlying Farm Bill on a broad, bipartisan basis.
                        Specifically, according to her office, the bill would "require electronic energy traders to provide an audit trail and record-keeping, monitor for market manipulation, and increase financial penalties for cases of market manipulation and excessive speculation."
                        Official sponsor of Mike Shannon's Retirement Party

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting Dean Baker thinks the best way is to impose a small tax similar to gambling.

                          Can the Media Talk About Taxing Speculation?
                          There has been considerable discussion of speculation as a factor driving up the price of oil, corn, and other commodities. Undoubtedly, speculation had played a role. (I don't know how much, my guess is that it is not the main force in most cases.)



                          There are many plans to crack down on speculation, but as a practical matter it will not be easy to distinguish between speculative dealings and normal business purchases of commodity futures (that is if there is a hide your motive).


                          A simple way around this problem to treat speculation like casino gambling, just tax it. A set of modest taxes on financial transactions (e.g. 0.2 percent on a future trade, 0.25 percent on a stock trade) could raise an enormous amount of money -- on the order of $150 billion a year.



                          It would have almost no impact on real investors, but it would take a big bite out of the hides of speculators.


                          In the past, economists such as Lasrry Summers and Nobel prize winners Joe Stiglitz and Jim Tobin have supported financial transactions taxes. It would be nice to see the media allow some discussion of the issue.

                          --Dean Baker



                          I don't know if this would work but it's something worth exploring rather than have government meddle in by imposing regulations.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So...why are they still speculating on it?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              But crude oil prices only account for a small fraction of the price of gasoline. Someone here (I can't remember who ) has repeated that 3, 4, 8, or 187 times.

                              But if a law is enacted, crude will fall to $70 and gas will be $2 in a month?????
                              Sketch in STL
                              Official Sponsor of jHonny Peralta

                              I'M WITH HILLARY!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X