Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do we have an oil bubble?

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

  • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

    Here you go C1ue -

    This one's all for you. It appears your long held (18 months, and counting) thesis that China's energy consumption would / must "crash" post Olympics is about to become an orphan to unfolding actual demand trends. 5.7% annual demand growth, now estimated for 2009, raised up a tick from last months growth estimates. Even the global consumption growth estimate has ticked up year on year, to 1.1% estimated in 2009 from 0.9% this year.

    Who could have known? :rolleyes:

    _____________

    IEA Increases Its Global Oil Demand Forecast for 2009 (Update1)

    By Grant Smith

    Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The International Energy Agency, an adviser to 27 nations, raised its forecast for global oil demand next year and said it expects Chinese oil consumption to rise after the Olympic Games.

    The IEA increased its forecast by 70,000 barrels to 87.8 million barrels a day, the Paris-based agency said today in its monthly report. Last week's pipeline explosion in Turkey may cut output from Azerbaijan by 30 percent this quarter and supplies are further threatened by military action in Georgia.

    "We're still looking at a pretty buoyant picture in 2008, 2009 in China,'' David Fyfe, the IEA's supply analyst, said in a telephone interview. "We are seeing a two-tiered market'' with emerging economies surging and developed markets flagging.

    Chinese oil demand is expected to increase 5.7 percent next year as consumers in the world's fastest-growing major economy spend more on travel. ``Minor revisions'' to global growth forecasts, and expectations for rebuilding of depleted heating oil inventories in Germany also contributed to adjustments to world demand, the IEA said.

    "Recent trends in Chinese crude runs suggest a possibility of stronger than expected demand, pre-Olympic stockpiling or both,'' the report said. Chinese demand "will likely rebound'' with the lifting of measures to curb pollution during the Olympics, it said.

    The agency projects [ global ] demand growth for 2009 at 1.1 percent, from 1 percent last month, while the rate for this year remains unchanged at 0.9 percent.

    The Chinese government had closed oil refineries and coal-fired power stations and reduced vehicle traffic before the Olympic Games to improve air quality. Fuel use will likely recover when these facilities are reopened after the event, the IEA said.

    The country's demand trends for the second half of the year remain "remarkably opaque,'' the report said. Once the games finish refiners may curb imports, or the government may raise fuel costs for consumers. Alternatively the return of one million cars removed from Beijing's roads during the tournament may bolster demand, the IEA said.

    OPEC, which supplies more than 40 percent of the world's oil, will need to provide about 31.6 million barrels a day this year to balance world supply and demand, the report showed.

    To contact the reporters on this story: Grant Smith in London at gsmith52@bloomberg.net

    Last Updated: August 12, 2008 07:18 EDT

    Comment


    • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

      This is getting really funny. Can the admin of this forum change back the title of the thread to it's original form? The original title was: "We have an oil bubble: the proof"

      This is the second time is get my posts modified (or censored) on this forum for trying to talk about an oil bubble... Is this site owned by a Russian company ?

      The other message that has been modified by Fred direct editing (probably due to an accident) was:

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by FRED
      You received a my responses to this thread here, here, and here where I directed you to the previous discussions we have had on the topic where we reached these conclusions so that after reading them if you still had further questions we can address them.

      Yes Fred, I really appreciate the chance of getting educated into this subject. But I was hoping for a succinct and direct answer regarding precisely points 5-8 from this message.

      I know that maybe you don't have time to reply at length but I was hoping from you for a point by point short rebuttal of my counter arguments:

      Quote:
      5. No new source of credit has been created to finance oil purchases (No oil CDOs)
      ETN's - Actually one may argue that the oil indexed ETF share are the real Oil CDO's while the ETNs are in fact some funky form of structured credit default swaps (CDS) based on those Oil ETN's or sometimes based jsut on thin air (virtual oil) since there are some ETN's which have no index conenction with a an ETF.

      6. No government deregulation (No change in government regulatory environment fueled the oil bubble; policy has been a constant)
      I disagree here. IMHO Enron (2000) and Swaps (20060 loopholes) are exactly that. After reading carefully Greenberger's testimony before the Senate how can someone say that?
      How come that Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan are considered "comemrcial hedgers" ( I haven't seen yet a GS refinery, JPM gas station, or a Lehman oil rig or a Merryl pipeline) exempt from any position limits and regulatory disclosures?
      How come that a trader in Texas is subjected to CFTC regulations when making a transaction on Nymex, but the same trader if places his orders on Nymex through ICE or Dubai his transaction is not anymor esubject to the same CFTC regulations.

      7. No new tax incentives (No new tax laws lowering capital gains taxes on oil investing ala 1986 tax relief act)
      Isn't the Sullivan & Cromwell loophole a great tax incentive for investign in ETN's? And if not why?

      8 Lack of enforcement of securities law or other market regulations (No instances of market regulators looking the other way while laws are broken)
      Ok on this one I have to be softer because after the recent news about regulation of the expired CDO fest, it's pretty hard to argue that the regulatory bodies are not looking the other way when they are not asllep at their desks. So I'll point only to Grenberger's testimony again

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by FRED
      Considering that you have decided to ignore our previous discussions and have demanded that our members re-hash them for your personal benefit, the treatment you have received here has been kind and patient, albeit at times colorful as is the style of some of our members.

      Fred I have no hard feelings and I hope I have enough humor to take more friendly challenges only as they should be taken. I'm not upset or resentful at all. I was only trying to reply to the the friendly and colorful welcome using a tongue-in-cheek style ... just to add one more spot of color to the crowd

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by FRED
      I do not doubt that you are earnest in attempting to get to the bottom of the oil price issue. You have made interesting points and express yourself very well. So I ask the other members here: Do you feel that any of the points that $#* has brought up have not been covered in previous discussions and are they sufficiently compelling to justify re-opening the discussion? Is there a chance that we can convince ourselves that oil is in fact the target of asset price inflation?

      First, I would like to say that I have two or maybe three more messages to write, in order to completely express my views. Any input, before or after that, is highly appreciated and welcomed, regardless how colorful. I'm always glad to accept a challenge.

      I hope the disclaimer at the begging of my previous post has been clearly understood as a warning I was going to use (hopefully good) humor in order to make the reading of a long post more enjoyable.

      For example a tongue-in-cheek answer to this last quote from your message would be:
      "Fred, should I understand that majority has lost patience with dealing with Oil Bubble arguments? I hope that a popular tribunal would not be convened in order to vote for an execution (by thread locking and subject banning). The soviets had learn through total collapse that it's impossible to kill ideas and trying to suppress dissent doesn't prove the validity of force imposed 'truth.' "

      Of course that such an answer should be considered joke, because I know it would be against the very essence of the iTulip spirit to exercise any form of debate censorship. I know that you would not allow any form of idea locking on this forum, because it would be against your principles and I know that when senior iTulipers get bored with the posts of pesky new members they simply ignore the discussion.

      If this kind of humor is too colorful for this site and creates any discomforts, please let me know, and I'll try to a adjust to a more formal tone.
      Maybe I was wrong and maybe there is petty censorship on this forum directed against those who are daring to question the official positions of iTulip owners.

      Comment


      • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

        Originally posted by $#* View Post
        This is getting really funny. Can the admin of this forum change back the title of the thread to it's original form? ... Maybe I was wrong and maybe there is petty censorship on this forum directed against those who are daring to question the official positions of iTulip owners.
        My apologies - I did not realise that Fred had done his level best to "put this thread to bed" so that we could move on. I made the mistake of posting a reply here to C1ue and should have either just kept it to myself or posted it elsewhere. Please let's not rescuscitate $#*'s "undimmed enthusiasm" for thrashing this topic yet further here! Have mercy $#*!

        Comment


        • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

          Originally posted by Lukester
          This one's all for you. It appears your long held (18 months, and counting) thesis that China's energy consumption would / must "crash" post Olympics is about to become an orphan to unfolding actual demand trends. 5.7% annual demand growth, now estimated for 2009, raised up a tick from last months growth estimates. Even the global consumption growth estimate has ticked up year on year, to 1.1% estimated in 2009 from 0.9% this year.
          Please show where I said that China's energy consumption would crash.

          What I REALLY said was that there is a strong possibility that the Olympics would mark the high point of their economic miracle.

          So long as China continues to subsidize energy, there is no reason for it to crash although a reduced growth will also reduce the increase in consumption.

          Comment


          • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
            Please show where I said that China's energy consumption would crash.

            What I REALLY said was that there is a strong possibility that the Olympics would mark the high point of their economic miracle.

            So long as China continues to subsidize energy, there is no reason for it to crash although a reduced growth will also reduce the increase in consumption.

            Not crash, but slow significantly, maybe even drop, but surely not crash.

            Comment


            • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

              OK. So far no admin has replied to my request to undo the changes to the title of this thread and put it back to the original form - "We have an oil bubble: the proof"

              It seems that not only in Putin's Russia, but also on iTulip, any idea that dares to contradict the official party line is censored with soviet style intolerance for dissenting views.

              Anyway, going back to the subject at hand and interesting WSJ article and a pertinent commentary by Yves Smith:

              http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1218..._us_whats_news

              Data emerging on players in the commodities markets show that speculators are a larger piece of the oil market than previously known, a development enlivening an already tense election-year debate about traders' influence.

              Last month, the main U.S. regulator of commodities trading, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, reclassified a large unidentified oil trader as a "noncommercial" speculator.

              The move changed many analysts' perceptions of the oil market from a more diversified marketplace to one with a heavier-than-thought concentration of financial players who punt on big bets.

              As a result, the number of futures and options contracts held by traders counted as speculators -- those who don't have a commercial need to mitigate the risks of energy prices in their business -- rose to 49% of all crude-oil bets outstanding on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 38%.
              Just by reclassifying one single big player, who was previously hiding under the protective blanket offered by the Swaps Loophole, resulted in a 11% increase in what CFTC considers to be speculative positions. I wonder what would happen if another 4-5 big players who are currently hiding under the Swaps Loophole were reclassified

              Here is Yves Smith's opinion:


              Quelle Surprise! Speculators May Have Had Something to do With Oil Price Runup




              Since roughly February, a solid minority of commentarors, including this blogger, have questioned the thesis that the rapid increase in oil prices was solely the function of supply and demand. It was disconcerting to see what reactions this stance elicited. There was often an unwillingness to read what was written, and instead turn the post into an exercise in projection. Use of the word "speculator" is taken to mean the author 1. thinks speculation is bad (no, depends on circumstances), 2. is economically illiterate and 3. is a Peak Oil denier (a lot of vitriol here).
              [...]
              It seems ironic that now that prices are falling, the CFTC has reclassified its data to show that some traders on exchanges that were previously designated as commercial are now classified as "non-commericial". The role of weight of non-traditional money in the market now lends support to the notion that demand from new players looking for an inflation hedge or simply participation in a different asset class played a role in the sudden price move.
              [...]
              Also at issue is whether the report played down speculators' influence, notwithstanding the report's finding that "the positions of non-commercial traders in general, and hedge funds in particular, often move in the same direction as prices."....

              Meanwhile, a debate is erupting within the agency..... about what the agency does and does not know about participants in this market. .....

              Lehman Brothers analysts say the CFTC data, as they are now reported, fail to distinguish certain categories of financial traders from commercial traders and create "an opportunity for the activity of less-informed, purely financial investors to distort expectations."
              (I hope nobody will try to change the title of Mr. Smith's blog entry into something less discomforting for the Peak Cheap Oil theory )
              Last edited by Supercilious; August 17, 2008, 11:25 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

                Not so fast, spook.

                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7566566.stm

                Petrol pump pilgrims keep faith BBC 8/17/08

                A prayer group in Washington DC is claiming the credit for the recent sharp drop in the US price of petrol.
                Jim 69 y/o

                "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                Comment


                • Re: Do we have an oil bubble?

                  Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
                  Not so fast, spook.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7566566.stm

                  Petrol pump pilgrims keep faith BBC 8/17/08
                  You find that piece of information (and more) in the first post of this thread

                  Comment


                  • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                    Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                    Quote:
                    "We've tried everything and just nothing seems to be working, so we're going to ask God to intervene and help us overcome this terrible crisis," said Rocky Twyman, founder of the Pray at the Pump Movement. ... Since Mr. Twyman founded the Pray at the Pumps Movement in April, he has led groups in praying and singing at gas stations in Baltimore, Washington, and San Francisco.

                    This sort of display must leave the rest of the world sorely tempted to conclude that our entire nation have succumbed in herd like fashion to mad cow disease. God created us to think for ourselves, not to abdicate thought. But "thought abdication" seems an increasingly popular component of American society when distressed by circumstances. We also happen to be the worlds biggest energy hogs, and a correction of that habit could to some extent alleviate this early fuel distress? Altogether a pathetic display of abject regression - seems almost like some form of animistic religion at work here (group prayer at the gas station??). This man needs a few vigorous administrations of the "boot in the derriere" therapy to wake up to the issues overtaking his world.
                    Sorry, spook, I should have directed that to Luke. It seems prayer does work.
                    Jim 69 y/o

                    "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                    Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                    Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                    Comment


                    • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                      Originally posted by $#* View Post
                      Metalman (believing in the no-bubble theory) said the conflict in Ossetia won't help with the oil prices. He was right again .... it didn't ... the price is $112 today and, I guess, by next week or so it will fall bellow $100.

                      http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...lenews_barrons
                      my wife asked me to take her to someplace expensive. so i took her to a gas station. then the fight started...

                      Comment


                      • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                        Originally posted by metalman View Post
                        my wife asked me to take her to someplace expensive. so i took her to a gas station. then the fight started...
                        Oh damn... now there's at least six of us out of our cages...
                        http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                        Comment


                        • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
                          Sorry, spook, I should have directed that to Luke. It seems prayer does work.
                          Yup it seems so. Maybe we should send Mr. Twyman a letter giving him more details about other issues such as deficit, trade imbalance and credit default swaps

                          Anyway a little bit more information on the main subject of this (partially censored) thread:

                          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
                          Regulators had long classified a private Swiss energy conglomerate called Vitol as a trader that primarily helped industrial firms that needed oil to run their businesses.
                          But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol's books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol's portfolio -- at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.
                          The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators.
                          The CFTC, which learned about the nature of Vitol's activities only after making an unusual request for data from the firm, now reports that financial firms speculating for their clients or for themselves account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency. That figure may rise in coming weeks as the CFTC checks the status of other big traders.
                          [...]
                          The CFTC, which refrains from naming specific traders in its reports, did not publicly identify Vitol. The agency's report showed only the size of the holdings of an unnamed trader. Vitol's identity as that trader was confirmed by two industry sources with direct knowledge of the matter.
                          CFTC documents show Vitol was one of the most active traders of oil on NYMEX as prices reached record levels. By June 6, for instance, Vitol had acquired a huge holding in oil contracts, betting prices would rise. The contracts were equal to 57.7 million barrels of oil -- about three times the amount the United States consumes daily. That day, the price of oil spiked $11 to settle at $138.54. Oil prices eventually peaked at $147.27 a barrel on July 11 before falling back to settle at $114.98 yesterday.
                          The documents do not say how much Vitol put down to acquire this position, but under NYMEX rules, the down payment could have been as little as $1 billion, with the company borrowing the rest.
                          [...]
                          On its Web site, the firm says it has $100 billion a year in revenue and describes its thriving global energy-trading business.
                          [...]
                          The first major change to this regulatory framework occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms.
                          The CFTC granted this request. More exemptions soon followed, including one to the Houston-based energy trader Enron.
                          [...]
                          A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The law formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it.
                          In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.
                          [...]
                          The most successful of the private platforms was InterContinental Exchange, or ICE, founded by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a few other big brokerages in 2000. ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas without being subject to regulation.
                          The exemptions for swap dealers and the development of overseas markets allowed big brokerages to open the door for more hedge funds, pensions and big investors to move into commodities.
                          [...]
                          Meanwhile, commodities have been good business for big Wall Street brokerages. Its commodity trades helped keep Goldman Sachs profitable during the credit crisis, said Richard Bove, a banking analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann.

                          "Business is lousy right now," Bowie said of Goldman Sachs. "Commodities and currencies are clearly the strongest business they have right now."
                          In the coming months, swap dealers expect to have yet another venue for oil speculation. The CFTC has stated it would not stand in the way of trading in U.S. oil contracts overseas in Dubai. Goldman Sachs and Vitol are among the major investors in this new exchange.
                          Hmmm.... It's all fundamentals

                          Comment


                          • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                            Originally posted by $#* View Post
                            Yup it seems so. Maybe we should send Mr. Twyman a letter giving him more details about other issues such as deficit, trade imbalance and credit default swaps

                            Anyway a little bit more information on the main subject of this (partially censored) thread:

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
                            Hmmm.... It's all fundamentals
                            I don't honestly understand what is so damn surprising about this? OK, the regulators have no friggin' clue what is going on, on those exchanges that they are supposed to monitor. And the authorities grant the ability to conduct activities in a "de-regulated" [read "unregulated] fashion. Are sleeping regulators and the propensity of authorities towards so called "free markets" really a surprise to anyone any more?

                            Nobody with a functioning brain cell should be any more "surprised" by this than sub-prime defaults, CDO blowups, Fannie and Freddie troubles and all manner of other FIRE economy activities now making a public appearance in an editorial near you.

                            When Enron, Dynegy, and the merchant energy trading operations of a host of other "me too" imitators (Reliant, Duke, El Paso...) collapsed in domino style after their "prime broker" credit lines were cut off in the fallout from the Enron fraud, who do you think hired most of their top traders? Yep, Goldman, Morgan, Merrill, et al. [Who were, again no surprise, sources of much of the leverage Enron, et al were using. Sound familiar?] Pretty well every major Wall Street and London investment house used that event to take their relatively small energy trading desks and beef them up into major internal trading/speculation "profit" centers.

                            Many private energy trading firms, like Vitol [there are more of them than you might imagine], no longer facing any competition from the likes of Enron, Dynegy, etc. also scooped up top trading staff at that time. And in a typical FIRE economy fairy tale, what started as a hedge book for their very substantial physical trading activities evolved into a major profit center amplified by copious amounts of leverage available at a time of abundant and cheap credit. Once again, hardly unique. At least Vitol et al stuck close to their core business activities, unlike say GM and GE who wandered far away from manufacturing and financing of same, into subprime mortgages and gawd knows what else in the wonderful world of fantasy finance.

                            Let's remember that Enron did not collapse because its merchant energy trading business was in and of itself a flawed business strategy. If that was the case, Goldman and all the others would never have bothered to step into the void (that they helped to create and clearly lusted after once they saw what they were missing).

                            I am not saying any of this is "right" or "wrong", just that it was plainly obvious and should not be a surprise to anyone. Especially exchange regulators.

                            Finally, had to laugh at this line out of the Washington Post article [emphasis mine]:
                            "...ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas..."
                            "...vast quantities" eh? And all this time I was under the misunderstanding that the US didn't have enough oil... :rolleyes:

                            Maybe we should start a thread titles "Long live the paper barrel". After all, if it goes away how are all those whiz kid energy traders going to make their multi-million annual bonuses. The physical industry, with all its environmenatally destructive drilling, pipelines and refineries certainly can't support them in that style.
                            Last edited by GRG55; August 21, 2008, 07:58 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              I don't honestly understand what is so damn surprising about this? OK, the regulators have no friggin' clue what is going on, on those exchanges that they are supposed to monitor. And the authorities grant the ability to conduct activities in a "de-regulated" [read "unregulated] fashion. Are sleeping regulators and the propensity of authorities towards so called "free markets" really a surprise to anyone any more?

                              Nobody with a functioning brain cell should be any more "surprised" by this than sub-prime defaults, CDO blowups, Fannie and Freddie troubles and all manner of other FIRE economy activities now making a public appearance in an editorial near you.
                              Shhhht GRG55 !!!! Have you forgotten the official party line?

                              Originally posted by FRED View Post
                              No government deregulation (No change in government regulatory environment fueled the oil bubble; policy has been a constant)
                              Please be careful not to provoke another polkovnic reflex and get both our messages modified and censored
                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              When Enron, Dynegy, and the merchant energy trading operations of a host of other "me too" imitators (Reliant, Duke, El Paso...) collapsed in domino style after their "prime broker" credit lines were cut off in the fallout from the Enron fraud, who do you think hired most of their top traders? Yep, Goldman, Morgan, Merrill, et al. [Who were, again no surprise, sources of much of the leverage Enron, et al were using. Sound familiar?] Pretty well every major Wall Street and London investment house used that event to take their relatively small energy trading desks and beef them up into major internal trading/speculation "profit" centers.
                              You are absolutely right here, but this time it's a little bit more complex. The providers of "prime broker" credit lines are the central banks of emerging markets countries + opec SWF's + Japan etc. For them investing in commodities is much better than buying into FNM & FRM

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              Many private energy trading firms, like Vitol [there are more of them than you might imagine], no longer facing any competition from the likes of Enron, Dynegy, etc. also scooped up top trading staff at that time. And in a typical FIRE economy fairy tale, what started as a hedge book for their very substantial physical trading activities evolved into a major profit center amplified by copious amounts of leverage available at a time of abundant and cheap credit. Once again, hardly unique. At least Vitol et al stuck close to their core business activities, unlike say GM and GE who wandered far away from manufacturing and financing of same, into subprime mortgages and gawd knows what else in the wonderful world of fantasy finance.
                              Yup. You are right. It's always the same.

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              Let's remember that Enron did not collapse because its merchant energy trading business was in and of itself a flawed business strategy. If that was the case, Goldman and all the others would never have bothered to step into the void (that they helped to create and clearly lusted after once they saw what they were missing).
                              Here I'm not sure I can agree with you completely. IMHO the great inherent flaw of the Enron system was the use of a close system model with an unstable link between virtual energy and physical energy.

                              Liquidity inflows were provided by the banks the profit was anchored in the value of Enron shares and the virtual energy was directly linked to physical energy. In order to obtain more credit, Enron had to increase the value of their shares and therefore produce more virtual energy out of nothing. That led to a spiral of death until they couldn't keep anymore the exponentially increasing volume of virtual energy anchored into the relatively constant volume of physical energy.

                              The new system is completely open, much better, much more sophisticated than what Enron did. If the CB's and SWF's begin to get their money out of commodities and there is a temporary price crash, the masters of the game (like Goldmann) will skate free and with their coffers loaded . Gee... the only conclusion is that Lay and Skilling went to the hole only because they didn't know how to do it right ;)

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              I am not saying any of this is "right" or "wrong", just that it was plainly obvious and should not be a surprise to anyone. Especially exchange regulators.
                              The $1 trillion is: this happened because CFTC is corrupt, incompetent or because it has better things to do that regulating the markets? My answer is yes.

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              Finally, had to laugh at this line out of the Washington Post article [emphasis mine]:
                              "...ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas..."
                              "...vast quantities" eh? And all this time I was under the misunderstanding that the US didn't have enough oil... :rolleyes:
                              Yup that is completely hilarious, but says it all

                              Comment


                              • Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

                                Originally posted by $#* View Post
                                ...Here I'm not sure I can agree with you completely. IMHO the great inherent flaw of the Enron system was the use of a close system model with an unstable link between virtual energy and physical energy.
                                I have a slightly different view. At the time it went down Enron, for all practical purposes didn't have any link between their trade book and the physical market in some of their trade divisions. Like pretty well all the trading companies of that era it started with a need to hedge around the physical transactions. That evolved into the creation of a speculative trading book - but still around the physical assets. But over time, as the need to keep driving profit growth at the rates the market demanded, the size of the trade book and leverage work their usual magic. By the end Enron traders were often being smoked by their counterparts at other companies [on the other side of the trade] simply because they were seemingly totally divorced from what was happening in the physical market.

                                I know. I used to work for one of their competitors. That is not an indictment of Enron's raw trading talent by the way.


                                [/quote]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X