Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
David Strom :: Townhall.com Columnist
An Unpopular Truth
by David Strom
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It’s been a while since I really angered a good chunk of my readers, so I guess it’s time.

In this spirit today I am rising up in defense of commodities speculators; more specifically, speculators in the price of oil and agricultural products.

There is no group more vilified today than the speculators, and few who are as unjustly attacked. Speculators have been taking a lot of heat from politicians and various other demagogues as the cause of the rapid rise in food and energy prices.

The latest group to get into the act of blaming speculators for rising prices is a coalition of a few big businesses (mainly airlines) that use a lot of fuel. They have banded together to create “Stop Oil Speculation Now,” a group dedicated to getting the government to seize more control over the futures trading market. One thing these businesses fail to tell you is that they were doing badly long before oil prices went up, mainly due to poor management.

If the idea of big businesses calling for more big government doesn’t frighten you, you must be a socialist already. These companies aren’t pushing this agenda for the common good of all of us—they want the government to bail them out by imposing price controls on oil through the back door of impeding the trading of futures in oil.

It’s hard to find an idea as dumb as this getting such serious attention.

Attacking speculators is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Price speculation is as naked a profit-seeking activity as can be found in a free-market economy, and when consumers get angry about price increases or shortages there is not easier target than the “blood sucking” and “profit before people” speculators.

Of course, nobody mentions that without a futures exchange the modern market in commodities would come to a screeching halt. In fact, the history of futures exchanges—where so-called “speculators” do all their trading—goes as far back as 1710 in Japan and 1800 in America, and some argue that even the ancient Greeks had futures markets.

What good is a futures market in commodities such as oil and food (and gold and silver and…)? Why do we need speculators to make a modern economy work?

Growing food and mining gold and pumping oil are risky businesses. Prices fluctuate a lot, and the supply of those goods varies quite a bit over months and years. A particularly good or bad harvest, the discovery of new oil fields or the flare up of a war in the Middle East, and even the decision to print fewer or more dollars by the Treasury or Federal Reserve can all have tremendous impact on the value of commodities. Supply and demand constantly fluctuate in these markets, and prices along with them.

That makes it difficult for producers of commodities to make long-term investments. They have no idea how an investment today might pay off tomorrow. Will large investments today yield significant profits tomorrow? In just a few hours of one day—July 15th, 2008—the price of a barrel of crude dropped $10. From the point of view of somebody deciding whether to invest billions of dollars in a new oil drilling venture, the prospect of significant declines in the price of oil looks both real and frightening. Same goes for farmers buying new farm equipment, or mining companies investing in a new mining venture.

Of course if they can lock in a price for the delivery of their goods at some time in the future producers will be more willing to make investments in future production, because they have a pretty good idea of what the return will likely be. And that is what happens in futures markets. Producers sell the rights to take delivery of their product at some specified time in the future in exchange for a certain price today.

And who buys those rights? Speculators. They are making a bet that the product they are buying at a certain price today will be worth more tomorrow. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose. Often they sell off their rights to another speculator who has a different bet on what the price in the future will be of the product they are buying. (For a great short lesson on who speculators are visit the blog Market Power written by economist Phil Miller).

That’s what futures markets do, and that’s why they—and the speculators who make them work—are so important. Farmers will farm less if they are less sure of their profits. Oil companies will seek less oil if they worry that oil to have another price collapse—as happened in the 90s after the peak prices of the 1970s and 80’s. (No, high prices as far as the eye can see are NOT inevitable, history tells us).

It’s the futures markets that make being in the commodities business stable enough to function relatively efficiently. Without futures markets, fewer commodities would be produced and prices would be, on average, even higher than without futures markets. It is the futures markets that provide the necessary stability (most of the time) to the commodities markets to keep producers in the business of selling risky goods.

The government taking more control over futures markets would do nothing to hold down the price of oil or food—in fact, such a move would almost certainly make things worse in the long run. And I am willing to bet that the folks behind Stop Oil Speculation Now KNOW that it would make things worse for consumers.

But they aren’t worried about that. I think they are hoping that getting the government into the oil pricing business will lead to more explicit price controls and supply management, putting their “vital” businesses at the head of the line for cheaper fuel and avoiding the inevitable fuel shortages that price controls would bring.

We’ve been down this road before: in the 1970s the government got into the business of price and distribution controls for fuel, and it was not a pretty sight. For those of you who don’t remember, government interference in market in the 1970s brought us gas lines, fuel shortages, and eventually stagflation.

Markets always work better than government, so let me hear from you all: three cheers for speculators!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

David Strom is the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. He hosts a weekly radio show on AM-1280 "The Patriot" in Minneapolis-St. Paul, available on podcast at Townhall.com.

Be the first to read David Strom's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

sue - - airlines
"Watch when oil prices come down and see if the airlines lower the rates back to what it was. Never in a million years would that happen."

Well I wouldn't be surprised if airlines used a reduction in fuel costs for a while to try to regain lost profitability -- however -- I expect it wouldn't be long before they began lowering prices for the purpose of stealing customers away from competition.

And it would happen a lot sooner than a million years!

That's just how competition works.

talent scout -- Viva la Profits!
"
Its all there and exists for the good of humanity
"

Heh! I suspect sarcasm -- however --

Making money IS for the good of humanity!!

And I think you'd agree, especially considering the horrors caused in the world by people and governments and dictators working to create environments where people CAN'T make money, or where they're only allow to make money in "government sanctioned" methods at "government approved" rates.

Viva la profits!

One last, TS
“[T]he confusion is being brought by you as I do not yet know where I am disagreeing with you.”

1) “[O]il would be lower without a Futures market… the futures market causes prices to rise” – completely wrong (nor do your references show otherwise). Government action does but that’s separate from the futures markets which lower/stabilize prices.
2) “Anyone who invested in the Oil Futures In the last 10 years could hardly lose money…. Prices have gone up, never down…. If the price stays down then the people who own futures contracts at the end of their contract, will lose money…. one day means very little. [O]il has hit an all time high each day over the last month… Oil has risen for the past 7 years…. Over all that means its never gone down.” Again, every one of these assertions is factually wrong. That the price of oil is higher today than 7 years ago OBVIOUSLY doesn’t mean the price has “never gone down”. You seem to believe that speculation in oil prices is primarily long term and (based on other comments) not subject to margin pressures. Such impressions would be no less wrong.

3) “The whole idea of futures is to make money, and make it due to an increase in its cost to the consumer…. [Mitigating price risk] translates into making money….” Again, each statement is completely wrong. As indicated by another statement (“Investors use the Market to make money…”), you appear to be confusing the reason why investors enter the market with its purpose/reason for creation. It was created by PRODUCERS to mitigate risk and allow them to INCREASE PRODUCTION (which LOWERS prices).

If you concede that futures markets DON’T drive up prices (actually lowering them), that oil prices have NOT shown an uninterrupted rise (and thus people HAVE lost money) and that the futures markets were created by producers to allow increased production, not by buyers to “make money”, you'll no longer be confused and we will have no disagreement. Until then...

futures
those of you who want the future market heavly regulated may lose some of your own money. See most pension plans invest in futures. If they are not allowed to invest or have to pay a larger maket they will less money. Stopping all speculators who do not take delivery would bankrupt many pension plans...then what who supports these people - me and you that is who

airlines are in it for themselves
if the only people who purchased futures were the actual people who took delivery they could set their own price. You have to have people who are willing to take the risk of a future being higher or lower to keep the market flexible.

Watch when oil prices come down and see if the airlines lower the rates back to what it was. Never in a million years would that happen. They will continue to charge higher prices and claim they need it which they just well may since they were in trouble way before the price of oil rose.

Government Restrictions drive UP
Speculation


Just like David Strom points out in this very article.

quote:
"Attacking speculators is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Price speculation is as naked a profit-seeking activity as can be found in a free-market economy, and when consumers get angry about price increases or shortages there is not easier target than the “blood sucking” and “profit before people” speculators."


Prices rise due to one thing.
The US Government

Stewed and over cooked says:
Stewpified Location: MA
Reply # 37
Date: Jul 16, 2008 - 11:47 AM EST
Subject: Untalented Scout
Talent Scout, commodities futures markets exist to provide liquidity to the commodities markets. Your looking back 10 years and saying that no speculator has lost money in oil futures is naive.
=====
ts:
Ok
I accept 10 years is wrong.
I also accept the Market is not there for any financial reasons.

Its all there and exists for the good of humanity

Untalented Scout
Talent Scout, commodities futures markets exist to provide liquidity to the commodities markets. Your looking back 10 years and saying that no speculator has lost money in oil futures is naive. From July '06 to Jan '07 crude dropped from $75 to $54. Based on the leverage of the contracts, and their limited time, there were absolutely people who lost money being "long" crude. During that period, those "short" crude were the ones making money.

Don't be fooled by the Dems simplistic headlines castigating the speculators. Speculators bet both ways. How would short speculators drive UP the price of oil?

Check out this story in the WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121547293036933987.html?mod=m ost_viewed_day_slide_show

Counter-intuitively, (like most mistakes liberals make when it comes to economics) futures markets help smooth out price swings. Markets that don't have futures attached to them turn out to be the more volatile ones--why? Easy: absence of liquidity.

Speaking of paint
F1etch writes:- 7:24 AM EST
Subject: To clarify
The end result of risk mitigation is that individuals make money just as the end result of purchasing a car when you work 50 miles from home is that you make money. But the express purpose of the risk mitigation is to INCREASE PRODUCTION - specifically, to ensure that producers are not disuaded from investing in productive activities because the risk associated with those investments is too great to justify the investment.
======

Reading this is like watching paint dry

How many ways are there
To describe a Mountain F1etch?
Unca Alby?

====

F1etch writes: Jul 16, 2008 - 7:19 AM EST
Good lord, TS
You keep making my points for me. First, you provide a Bloomberg article that, consistent with all of your other references, in no way supports your position or in any way undermines mine.

Then, you go completely off the deep end:
=====
ts:
Actually the confusion is being brought by you as I do not yet know where I am disagreeing with you.

Unca Alby brings up ladders as another way to describe the "mountain"

The Market exists to make money, that is all I am saying.
Investors use the Market to make money, no matter how you want to describe how they go about it.

All you are doing F1etch is saying if I do not repeat the lines you bring to describe making money, then I have gone off the deep end.
No one has to say something just like you do F1etch.

If the article from Bloomburg supports what you are saying, then what is our argument about?

I see it as me saying something one way, and you another.
And because I do not say it exactly like you do, you decide to confuse it all.

The Market Exists to Make Money.
Bottom Line
Now you can go on and on and talk about all the blends and tones of paint, but the paint (as Unc brings up) is to paint the house, as is using a ladder.
You are an arrogant man F1etch to think one has to say something as you would say it, and with the same details you focus on.

Just like David Strom points out in this very article.

quote:
"Attacking speculators is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Price speculation is as naked a profit-seeking activity as can be found in a free-market economy, and when consumers get angry about price increases or shortages there is not easier target than the “blood sucking” and “profit before people” speculators."





To clarify
The end result of risk mitigation is that individuals make money just as the end result of purchasing a car when you work 50 miles from home is that you make money. But the express purpose of the risk mitigation is to INCREASE PRODUCTION - specifically, to ensure that producers are not disuaded from investing in productive activities because the risk associated with those investments is too great to justify the investment.

Good lord, TS
You keep making my points for me. First, you provide a Bloomberg article that, consistent with all of your other references, in no way supports your position or in any way undermines mine.

Then, you go completely off the deep end:

I said that “The statement that oil has hit an all time high each day over the last month is factually wrong.“ You respond that “oil has risen for the past 7 years”. On average that’s true (even, in real terms). It doesn’t in any way change the fact that oil has flatly NOT hit an all time high each day over the last month. Your response is called: a lie (specifically, pretending that your stance is vindicated by an entirely different point). In fact, over the last 27 trading days (a bit longer than a month) no new highs were reached in 19 of them.

I said: “Further confusion relates to the statement that one can only lose money if the drop is on the day the contract comes due which is also factually wrong. It is particular so for margin investors who (as is nearly always the case with speculators) must pay additional money to cover the margins when the price drops materially.”

You respond: “I specifically said FUTURES.”

… which is odd since the ENTIRE statement I made has to do with investing in FUTURES. So your rebuttal … isn’t anything ofthe kind.

And I especially like how you respond to my point about futures contracts not being “designed to make money” by repeating my point (which contradicts your own). Mitigation of risk is NOT the same thing (a point that Unca Alby CAN grasp). That you can’t grasp this basic point is yet more evidence of your confusion … not mine.

talent scout: stick to your talents
Because they do NOT lie with commodity and stock speculation.


"What is this about if not making money?"

Well, there's making money, and there's making money. More specifically, there's making money, and there's preventing the loss of money; which might be considered "making money."

Why does a painter buy a ladder? "To make money." Well, sort of -- it's more specifically to help him paint the upper portions of the houses more easily; so it HELPS him make money.

Same with futures contracts. Yes, it HELPS them make money. But it does so specifically by reducing the risks associated with other buy and sell contracts.

It's like insurance. If they win, they don't win as much, because their winnings are minus what they paid for insurance. But also if they lose, they don't lose as much.

I owe David an apology
He had this info in his article and I over looked.

quote:
July 15th, 2008—the price of a barrel of crude dropped $10. From the point of view of somebody deciding whether to invest billions of dollars in a new oil drilling venture,....
====

Sorry David, thought you took it from the article I posted.
I see you were ahead if me for this information.

Good Lord F1etch
You write:

F1etch Location: PA
Reply # 28
Date: Jul 16, 2008 - 1:23 AM EST


The statement that oil has hit an all time high each day over the last month is factually wrong.


====
ts:
Oil has risen for the past 7 years F1etch.
Over all that means its never gone down.
A barrel of oil has continually increased the last 6 months.
I do not know how anyone could argue that.


=====
F1etch writes:


Further confusion relates to the statement that one can only lose money if the drop is on the day the contract comes due which is also factually wrong. It is particular so for margin investors who (as is nearly always the case with speculators) must pay additional money to cover the margins when the price drops materially.
====
ts:
I specifically said FUTURES.
Read what I write, not what you want to argue about, and make up as you go along.

======
F1etch writes:

The statement that “The whole idea of futures Is to make money” is not merely factually wrong.

It is nothing less than idiotic.

Futures contracts were expressly designed as a means of mitigating production price risk.
====
ts:
Talk about being an idiot, you just did.
All the while from one side of your mouth you say
"“The whole idea of futures Is to make money” is not merely factually wrong.
Is idiotic, you turn right around and say that is what it is designed for, to make money.
lol

What is this about if not making money?
F1etch writes:

"Futures contracts were expressly designed as a means of mitigating production price risk."

Which translates into making money.
You sure can say some idiotic thing F1etch

This is from last January
Oil $200 Options Rise 10-Fold in Bet on Higher Crude (Update5)

By Grant Smith
Enlarge Image/Details

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the price of crude will double to $200 a barrel by the end of the year.

Options to buy oil for $200 on the New York Mercantile Exchange rose 10-fold in the past two months to 5,533 contracts, a record increase for any similar period. The contracts, the cheapest way to speculate in energy markets, appreciated 36 percent since early December as crude futures reached a record $100.09 on Jan. 3.

Speculators don't require prices to rise all the way to $200 to make money from options since they can sell the contracts on to others as their value rises.

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter, said last week that the 500,000 barrel-a-day Khursaniyah oilfield missed a December start date. Brazil's Tupi field, the second-largest find of the past two decades, lies more than eight kilometers (five miles) below the ocean surface and will take at least five years to develop.

Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico's state oil monopoly, suffered a three-year, 40 percent decline at its Cantarell field, the world's third-largest. Fighting in Nigeria reduced production 11 percent since December 2005 to 2.18 million barrels a day, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayQXcHV StlP8&refer=home
========
With this sort of information, and hearing the government say no drilling, no refineries, 200 dollar a barrel by 2010 is the bet of the future.


Addressing massive confusion
Not sure why Strom’s comments indicate confusion on my part. Now you’re confused about whom you’re responding to.

Second, you’re confused about the direction of prices. The statement that oil has hit an all time high each day over the last month is factually wrong. Further confusion relates to the statement that one can only lose money if the drop is on the day the contract comes due which is also factually wrong. It is particular so for margin investors who (as is nearly always the case with speculators) must pay additional money to cover the margins when the price drops materially.

The statement that “The whole idea of futures Is to make money” is not merely factually wrong. It is nothing less than idiotic. Futures contracts were expressly designed as a means of mitigating production price risk. They were developed for agriculture so that a farmer could ensure that, assuming he could bring his full crop to market, he would not operate at a loss and therefore be dissuaded from planting in the first place. Futures contracts have, BY DESIGN, increased the availability of the commodities traded and have stabilized prices (at lower levels) to the benefit of both producer and consumer.

If the government reduced restrictions on the production of oil, the price of futures contracts would go down EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE SPECULATOR WERE IN THE MARKET. It would be an increase in aggregate long term supply which, economically, reduces prices. You are again confused in your belief that this phenomenon has the slightest thing to do with the presence of a futures market.

It is becoming abundantly clear that you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

oil stuff
first i would direct you to this site
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/ioc042308.htm
snipit.....
International organized criminals have penetrated the energy market and other strategic sectors of the U.S. and world economy. As U.S. energy needs continue to grow, so too could the power of those who control energy resources.
then i would direct you to this site....
http://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/deepc apture-the-story-v1.pdf
to big for a snipitt.....
and i would highly reccommend listening to this......
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0712-2.asx
and finally .....
Knowing that the SEC has issued a subpoena to Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne regarding his interests in naked short selling abuses, demanding all documents he had on the subject matter, it is not without reason to believe that the computer he received containing over 8,000 e-Mails documented the aforementioned is in fact in the hands of the SEC as well. Byrne addresses these e-Mails at http://www.deepcapture.com and discloses several who are identified in this game of manipulation.
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-19-07/s71907-652.htm

happy reading


The whole idea of futures
Is to make money, and make it due to an increase in its cost to the consumer.

Anyone can see the regulations that stop drilling and opening new oil fields will limit the supply of oil

If the Government removed all its limits on oil production, the futures market would go down.

Lack of sufficient oil supply will keep it high.
If there is a limit to how much oil is available to buy in the future, then the bidding for the available oil goes up.

Not as difficult as some love to insinuate, so all think they know it better than anyone else and are a bit disingenuous .

Many common people buy in the futures market and understand it


Drill, Drill, Drill
Get even with those "evil" speculators. Drill, drill, drill, and watch them bid the prices back down.

F1etch is still confused
And brings up a lot of subjects outside what I said so he can get on his soap box and preach, lol.

David Strom writes:
10:40 PM EST
Losing money?
Well, a bunch of people lost money just today. Oil prices plunged 4% just today, and at one point they were down $10.
====

I am the one who posted that info. thanks for reading it.

That is not the way the futures market works anyway, one day means nothing.
If the price stays down then the people who own futures contracts at the end of their contract, will lose money.
That has yet to happen, one day means very little.

"A trader may buy an oil futures contract (an agreement on a certain amount of oil at a certain point in the future) in the expectation that the price of oil will rise. If it does, the contract may be worth more. Since the trader doesn't pay the full amount of the contract, but only a small percentage, the trader has a great deal of leverage and their profits (and losses) are much greater than had they simply bought oil itself. (You can also SELL the commodity first, planning to buy back the contract later when/if the price goes down -- a process known as "shorting".)"

One day does not cause anyone to lose money unless their day the contracts ends was today, and they had bought at the higher price.

Which is almost impossible to have done, seeing the price has hit an all time high each day the past month or two.


Good to see you too, bryce
It's been a long road back but it's good to be here again.

Let me see if I can address your issue.

It stands to reason that whatever other factors may be involved, ultimately oil is at $145 a gallon because there are buyers/speculators willing to pay that price. Without question, that is correct. Up to that point you are doing just fine. In fact, at that point there is no difference between buyers and speculators at all.

You are close thereafter for awhile. It is the demand of those actors in the marketplace in conjunction with the supply that ultimately determine the price at any given time. The demand of those speculators is no different from any other demand. Initially, the presence of those additional buyers (higher demand) does raise the short term price (albeit the amount of oil represented in the futures market is a tiny fraction of the product on the market so even then the differential is tiny).

All other things being equal, increased demand yields higher prices. But all other things are NOT equal. Ultimately, the speculator receives no product. He must sell the exact amount that he purchased before. Thus, by the time the transaction is done, supply has been increased by an amount exactly equal to the amount that the demand had increased and the net effect on long term prices is - in fact, MUST be - zero.

The initial price can rise in the short trem but since futures contracts are ultimately traded in the relatively short term, even the distortion on any given day's price is tiny.

Note, I didn't say there was NO impact from speculators, only that it wa only TIMING related and not material to the overall price.

F1etch, long time no see
As always, your posts are a great read, and as usual I have to take issue with one of your assertions. My issue is with your assertion that speculators have little effect on prices. It stands to reason that whatever other factors may be involved, ultimately oil is at $145 a gallon because there are buyers/speculators willing to pay that price.

No doubt the other factors, principally supply and demand, make oil a precious commodity, but it is the speculators who determine its' exact worth on any given day.

But that is a minor quibble, your analysis is as always spot on and highly informative.

Losing money?
Well, a bunch of people lost money just today. Oil prices plunged 4% just today, and at one point they were down $10.

A lot of people who bought at the top lost money. And since many or most of bought those futures on a margin, they could have lost a LOT of money.

Each buyer needs a seller, and since most of these traders are not buy and holders, marginal changes in the price can mean a lot of money lost or made.

Sure, futures traders are chasing profits in the market, but so are farmers, homebuilders, mortgage brokers, lawyers, and all the rest of us.

Few of us are willing to work for free, or lend our money without interest, or buy a stock without hope of profit. Same with futures traders.

As far as I know, just about all of us are profit seekers. Even in socialist countries black markets develop because markets driven by the profit motive are the most efficient way to allocate goods.

Igor
Don’t make the mistake of believing that the creation of futures contracts in any way resembles the Fed printing money (or more correctly increasing the money supply by any means). In the latter case, the permanent stock of money is effectively increased devaluing each successive unit (this is, in fact, a chief reason for the run up in the price of oil and so many other things at the same time). Futures contracts are economically short term instruments (as long as 7 years but typically fall far shorter) that expire. They have no impact whatsoever on actual supply except inasmuch as the reduced uncertainty creates incentives to create MORE product (which actually diminishes prices).

The speculators and investors, while sometimes losing money, do typically earn a premium for their contributions. This premium is invariably offset by the lower (again in relation to what they otherwise would be) prices that would exist in their absence even if as much product could be produced in their absence, which is economically unlikely.

Thus, and this is yet another confusion of TS, while it is correct to say that the government’s imposed restrictions on supply DO, in fact, ensure higher prices than would otherwise exist, that activity is completely separate and unconnected to the activity in the futures market which actually OFFSETS such activity, albeit to a very limited extent as the investment in the futures market compared to worldwide oil production is miniscule.

Yes, you are confused
The first confusion is the apparent belief that I’ve argued that you were incorrect with regard to who is ultimately the problem. Why keep making a point that I have at no time disputed?

Your second is the erroneous belief that speculators are driving up prices. There is little difference between speculators and investors. BOTH perform a valuable service, allocating resources to the most productive avenues and ultimately stabilizing prices. In context, investors purchase futures contracts to obtain product at some future date or are sell them to ensure a given price for product they are actually in the process of producing. Speculators have no intention of taking possession of the product and are, instead, speculating about changes in supply and demand conditions over time. Speculators never remove actual product from the market and, thus, while a purchase can increase short term prices, the inevitable sale must, again by definition, have a countervailing effect and reduce prices (not necessarily to a lower level but lower than they otherwise would have been).

A related confusion is the equally erroneous belief that the creation of futures contracts in any way resembles the Fed printing money (or more correctly increasing the money supply by any means). In the latter case, the permanent stock of money is effectively increased devaluing each successive unit (this is, in fact, a chief reason for the run up in the price of oil and so many other things at the same time). Futures contracts are economically short term instruments (as long as 7 years but typically fall far shorter) that expire. They have no impact whatsoever on actual supply except inasmuch as the reduced uncertainty creates incentives to create MORE product (which actually diminishes prices).

And the last obvious confusion is that ANY of the numerous examples you have so painstakingly provided in any way either undermine my (economically sound) position or in any way support your own.

Not what I said, either
Smile
Feel free to name me as who you are talking about.


=====

David Strom writes:- 9:30 PM EST




(and contrary to a commentator above, it was quite easy to lose money in the oil industry until quite recently,
====
I never said one could not lose money in the oil industry.

Not even close to saying that.

Here is what I said.

quote:

talent scout Location: CO
Reply # 10
Date: Jul 15, 2008 - 7:40 PM EST
Anyone who invested in the Oil Futures
In the last 10 years could hardly lose money.

You just misread what I said is all.

If you think anyone has lost money in the Futures market in the last 10 years, I would accept I am wrong.

But I do no know how it was possible due to a consistent rise in oil products.
No down turns I know of, maybe so and I am just not aware of it.
You know anyone who lost money?

Igor...
If you require buyers of a futures contract to take delivery of the product, you have pretty much eliminated the risk management element of the futures market.

Futures markets serve a risk management function in the marketplace. If you require the farmer to find the ultimate buyer of his good at the time of sale, you essentially have reduced the marketplace to a giant farmers' market. The same with all commodities which have volatile prices.

Fewer producers will want to be in a riskier business (and contrary to a commentator above, it was quite easy to lose money in the oil industry until quite recently, and oil futures in the out years suggest a downward trend in the price of oil long-term as demand responds to price increases and supply responds to increased prices. IN the 1990s prices went on a long downward slide for about a decade).

Closing down futures markets would only serve to increase prices in the long run as all but the largest producers get out of commodities businesses, and supplies would be lower than today.

BTW, I didn't mention it in the article because it was off-point, but probably the single largest cause of higher prices after demand increases from the 3rd world is the drop in the dollar's value. According to the Dallas Fed more than a third of the price increase in oil is due to the weakening of the value of the dollar.

No amount of speculative "froth" comes close to having that large an impact on the price of oil.

Investors or "speculators"
Whats the difference?

Both in it to make money as middlemen

If futures
Investors or speculators did not have something to do with the price of crude, then what is the bidding all about/
hmmmmmmm?

And why does the cost of oil rise when we hear a member of OPEC says something like this?

quote:
Top Middle East Oil Figure Says
Saudis Can't Deliver


This is the sort of news the bidding goes higher, raising the costs, that is the opposite of lowering them.

Only with the news of an increased oil supply, to meet demands, will lower the futures market.
So when are we going to hear any news about plenty of oil available?

I do not think we are ever going to hear the investors or producers say this, as it causes the prices to fall, and for investors of producers, that is bad for business.

Of course the futures market causes prices to rise, but only because the government keeps the future bleak for an increased supply.

F1etch

I understand what you are saying, but there's something very perverse in the whole mechanism.

I'm sure you don't approve of FED printing the money that economy never created, because by selling these "future" dollars they create very negative side effect - their "future" loses the value.

I have no problem with anybody buying any amount of oil, corn, gold ... one month, half-year, year ... ahead, as long as they TAKE delivery of the goods. And cannot trade paper, only real goods.

The same fact that "trading" something that doesn't exist and that you don't really own has effect on the "real" value of the good exactly as virtual dollars have effect on real dollar (one created by economy). I just wish that oil, gold, corn ... etc would have so predictable effect of going down in value as dollar does.

OK, I'm just being facetious, I know that quantity of oil is limited, but Government can print any amount of money they want - even to bring dollar to parity with Mexican Peso.

As you normally do F1etch
F1etch writes: 8:23 PM EST
Subject: Easily explained


You are confusing "investors" (whose actions are, by definition, driven by supply and demand, with "speculators".
====
ts:
You go about setting up what point you want to make and charge me with a silly judgment about being "confused".
I am not "confused" about any thing, let alone the oil futures market.

I said it plain enough where the real problem is.
The government
But the Futures Market do increase the cost just exactly like I showed it does in this article.

Oil prices plummet on bad economic news
Adam Schreck - Associated Press Writer - 7/15/2008 2:45:00 PM
NEW YORK - Oil prices fell harder than they have in 17 years Tuesday, as fears that record fuel prices are spreading broad economic pain led to the third big sell-off in just over a week.



Light, sweet crude plunged $6.44, or 4.4 percent, to settle at $138.74 in an extremely volatile session. Prices at one point dropped more than $10 a barrel from the day's high.

The turnaround may not signal a lasting shift in sentiment - prices have swung violently in recent days as they flirted with record highs. But it does underscore investor uncertainty about the sustainability of sky-high prices and potentially long-lasting effects on the broader economy.

"They're slamming this pretty good. But remember, these (big) moves are becoming a little more commonplace," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.

Earlier, the contract rose as high as $146.73 and fell as low as $135.92. Prices hit a record $147.27 Friday.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=179412

Easily explained
Actually, what you are demonstrating is just how LITTLE impact speculators have on the oil markets (which economically STABILIZE prices). A point that I made in my column just this past Monday. Just click on my (shamelessly plugged) name.

You are confusing "investors" (whose actions are, by definition, driven by supply and demand, with "speculators". You are further confusing the reaction to changing investment risk (for which investors demand a risk premium) with speculative volatility.

By economic definition, speculators, who do not consume product and must ultimately return it to the marketplace, have absolutely ZERO impact on long term prices. The most that they can do, again by economic (and endlessly demonstrated real world application) definition, is to alter the TIMING of price changes.

Also, because speculators are often buying and selling contracts over a very short time span (the contract delivery date has no bearing on this), quite a bit of money has been lost (and gained) in such volatile markets.

I agree with Strom...
unfortunately, most of us with retirement accounts may be investing in oil futures without even being aware we are doing it. I have directed my fund manager to pull any money I have in oil and redirect it. This may hurt my income but I have no desire to have any part of the price gouging for gasoline of my fellow Americans. I'm not making enough on it to offset the ding I'm taking at the pump either. I did receive an e-mail from the airlines as I travel frequently with Delta. I'm not signing onto their stop speculators petition. However, I did sign onto Newt Gingrich's drill here and drill now petition. I think that is the sure way to drive the price of crude down.

Anyone who invested in the Oil Futures
In the last 10 years could hardly lose money.

Prices have gone up, never down.
So anyone who invested has not been in danger of losing money on lower cost of oil.

What has happened is investments have caused futures to raise prices, to one degree or another.

Unless someone knows when the price of oil has gone down for any period of time outside of a minor ripple.

Futures Market has worked fine for all, but knowing the government has no intention of allowing any production, drilling here, keeps it high.
Government is the problem today everywhere you look and see a problem




Explain this then F1etch
F1etch writes:- 6:42 PM EST
Alas, TS


Of course the price of oil would NOT be lower without the futures market and, in fact, the prices of most commodities, particularly agricultural ones, would be considerably HIGHER in the absence of a futures market. Money is certainly made (and lost) as a result of such speculation, but, economically, the only impact on the price resulting from speculation is a rise in the VERY short term that must be offset by a like amount when the futures contract comes due (or is rolled over).
======

I understand you, you do not understand me.

quote:
Oil prices plummet on bad economic news
Adam Schreck - Associated Press Writer - 7/15/2008 2:45:00 PM
NEW YORK - Oil prices fell harder than they have in 17 years Tuesday, as fears that record fuel prices are spreading broad economic pain led to the third big sell-off in just over a week.



Light, sweet crude plunged $6.44, or 4.4 percent, to settle at $138.74 in an extremely volatile session. Prices at one point dropped more than $10 a barrel from the day's high.

The turnaround may not signal a lasting shift in sentiment - prices have swung violently in recent days as they flirted with record highs. But it does underscore investor uncertainty about the sustainability of sky-high prices and potentially long-lasting effects on the broader economy.

"They're slamming this pretty good. But remember, these (big) moves are becoming a little more commonplace," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.

Earlier, the contract rose as high as $146.73 and fell as low as $135.92. Prices hit a record $147.27 Friday.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=179412

Investers have a very large impact on the cost of crude.

I am not for government doing anything but keeping out of the market, but they will not and have not for a very long time.
Government itself is a business in todays America


A world without futures
Strom is exactly right. Without a healthy futures market there would be no way to hedge against unknown risks.

It is the continued disbelief in Capitalism that all Liberals share that causes them to believe that the answer is always some form of intervention by them.

It is this "smarty pants" attitude that is the single most annoying thing about them either as individuals or as a group.

They believe that they are so smart that they can figure out solutions to the economy that no amount of their failure to do so will disuade them of.

In communism and in all socialist attempts the only thing they have managed is varying degrees of the removal of personal economic rights and the transference of these rights onto themselves as governments. I have little difficulty seeing Obama, especially given his near worship of Saul Alinski to see many more of these truly fundamental human rights lost in the cause of creating a more fair and just society.

The Clintons, both of whom were Alinksi accolites merely wanted to coin the office of the President and they succeeded at their task. Obama truly wants to create the conditions for a revolutionary change in America, one that is more in-line with the vision of Lenin and Stalin than that of Jefferson and Adams.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Alas, TS
The only thing missing from of governmental "research report" shockingly suggesting government intervention (no one saw THAT one coming) and the Global Research opinion upon which it is based is even the most basic grounding in actual economics.

Of course the price of oil would NOT be lower without the futures market and, in fact, the prices of most commodities, particularly agricultural ones, would be considerably HIGHER in the absence of a futures market. Money is certainly made (and lost) as a result of such speculation, but, economically, the only impact on the price resulting from speculation is a rise in the VERY short term that must be offset by a like amount when the futures contract comes due (or is rolled over).

The economic reality is...
...that speculators are having NO material impact on prices (and none at all on long-term average prices), but it is phenomenally easy to scapegoat them as the "cause" of the problem as either a) an excuse for politicians to ignore the real problem (state restrictions on production), b) an excuse to blame a company's financial woes on someone else (a la the airlines), c) a demand that government regulation reduce competition in the field (as the portfolio manager testifying before the Senate did) so that those remaining can line their pockets, d) that T. Boone Pickens can get public support for governmental support for the wind power that he just invested heavily in or e) permit the economically ignorant to demonstrate that ignorance yet again.

It isn't speculators (no real impact), or conspiracies to reduce refining (a blatant lie) or "windfall" or "excessive" profits (which don't exist) or a failure to develop alternatives (which are neither cost effective or anywhere near sufficient) or The Great Pumpkin that is the problem. It is the continued blindness of politicians who believe that artificially restricting supply at a time of rising global demand is a prudent course. It is Nancy Pelosi/Barak Obama/Harry Reid idiocy, nothing more.

No more Government Regulation
We need smaller government...not bigger government.

Link worth reading
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

I am all for drilling
Nuclear Energy
Clean Coal
Wind and Solar power.
But to think futures do not exist for profit of middle men, is dumb.

Of course oil would be lower without a Futures market and millions made by people due to investments and control.
Has nothing to do with supply and demand, or Peak Oil bull malarky

Bravo!! Yeah Capitalism
Well stated. I can't believe any self respecting conservative would argue for more government regulation! Big Government = Higher Costs and Less Service.

What brainless politicians
have no clue about. Speculators are bidding up the price of oil because they are betting that supply will continue to be flat and demand will continue to soar. If you want speculators to bet the other way, that oil prices will be LOWER in the future, do something to change the supply/demand dynamic. LIKE START DRILLING HERE AT HOME!

Government should control speculators
Government policies from the EPA to the Energy Dept. to the Dept. of Commerce have resulted in rising in fuel prices. But fuel prices are not yet high enough! Let's regulate the speculation markets and force the price even higher!!

Seriously, the government should only be in the business of funding our great military, delivering our mail, and strictly enforcing drug laws. When governments get in the business of trying to be in business, they always screw things up.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.