PDA

View Full Version : Dang 'ol speculaters man



SoonerKnight
8/21/2008, 01:57 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26321642



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.

Some lawmakers have blamed these firms for the volatility of oil prices, including the tremendous run-up that peaked earlier in the summer.

"It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency's laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was "difficult to comprehend how the CFTC would allow a trader" to acquire such a large oil inventory "and not scrutinize this position any sooner."

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.

The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as "swap dealers" who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms.

To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC's purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn.

Using swap dealers as middlemen, investment funds have poured into the commodity markets, raising their holdings to $260 billion this year from $13 billion in 2003. During that same period, the price of crude oil rose unabated every year.

CFTC data show that at the end of July, just four swap dealers held one-third of all NYMEX oil contracts that bet prices would increase. Dealers make trades that forecast prices will either rise or fall. Energy analysts say these data are evidence of the concentration of power in the markets.

CFTC leaders have argued that speculators are not influencing commodities' prices. If any new information arises during the agency's examination of swap dealer activity, officials said they would report it to Congress.

To date, the CFTC has found that supply and demand fundamentals offer the best explanation for the systematic rise in oil prices," CFTC spokesman R. David Gary said, reading a statement that had been crafted by agency officials. "Regardless of their classification . . . the CFTC's market surveillance group scrutinizes daily the positions of all large traders, both commercial and non-commercial, to guard against market manipulation."

Victoria Dix, a spokeswoman for Vitol, declined to answer questions. The firm, through Dix, released a statement that stated only that it had not been contacted by the CFTC about the reclassification of its business and that its trading status remained unchanged. CFTC officials said they do not typically contact firms that are reclassified.

On its Web site, the firm says it has $100 billion a year in revenue and describes its thriving global energy-trading business.

For most of the past century, regulators put limits on financial actors to prevent them from dominating commodity exchanges, which were much smaller than the bond or stock markets. Only commercial operations, such as farms, airlines, manufacturers and the middlemen that handle their trading activities, were allowed to buy nearly unlimited quantities. The goal was to allow these businesses to minimize the effect of price swings.

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.

"When the CFTC granted the 1991 hedging exemption to J. Aron (a division of Goldman Sachs), it signaled a major shift that has since allowed investors to accumulate enormous positions for purely speculative purposes," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Now, he added, "legitimate businesses that hedge and take physical delivery of oil are being trampled by the speculators who are in the market purely to make profit."

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.

"Investment banks had been frustrated with the established exchange because they really were never able to get control of it," said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former staff member at the CFTC.

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.

In the coming years, commodity investments by funds could grow to $1 trillion, veteran hedge fund manager Michael Masters said in testimony before the Senate earlier this year. In an interview, he said this trend could raise commodity prices for everyone in the coming years and "have catastrophic economic effects on millions of already stressed U.S. consumers."

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.

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 09:20 AM
Great post, I got a fix for this though........instead of jail for people who do stuff like this maybe chopping off their hands or maybe the death penalty would be better.

Oldnslo
8/21/2008, 10:13 AM
Are they saying that there's something nefarious in the way these people are speculating, a la Enron? Or is it that the problem is that they're really good at speculating the oil market and, therefore, must be punished for making money.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 10:32 AM
Although their trading practices are reminiscent of Enron, as far I can tell in that story there is no books-cooking and there are no fraudulent filings involved, nor illegal tampering with the market. Just really crafty trading.

So lemme get this straight soonersn20xx... ...you want to chop off the hands of people who don't break any laws? Or give them the death penalty? I mean, it sounds like there might be some legal loopholes that need closing, but sheesh.

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 10:32 AM
Are they saying that there's something nefarious in the way these people are speculating, a la Enron?I believe so, market manipulation and betting the prices up..........instead of allowing the forces of supply and demand determine the prices their actions artificially inflated the value.

If this doesn't raise an eyebrow then you obviously possess a robber baron sense of mentality and/or morality. ;)

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 10:36 AM
You have just described the (legal) goal of pretty much everybody who trades stock or commodities. Now you want to outlaw the open market?

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 10:38 AM
You have just described the (legal) goal of pretty much everybody who trades stock or commodities. Now you want to outlaw the open market?

How is it a open market when the prices are being manipulated, that is not capitalism...that is psuedo capitalism and to the detrement of the consumers.


Thomas Palley, a former chief economist with the U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commissions said, "With regard to market fundamentals, there have been no changes in demand and supply conditions that explain the scale of the unanticipated jump in oil prices. Moreover, the actual behavior of oil prices is consistent with speculation." The Canberra Times 8/19/08


Mike Greenberg, a trader at Goldman Sachs said, "These speculators sell oil contracts back-and-forth to each other simply to inflate the price and reap windfalls." The Syracuse Post Standard, 8/18/08


"What is clear is that the vast majority of Index Speculators do not trade based on the underlying supply and demand fundamentals of the individual physical commodities. Therefore, their trading decisions damage the price discovery function of the commodities futures markets. Testimony of Michael G. Masters, Managing Member and Portfolio Manager, Masters Capital Management, L.L.C. 6/23/08


"I do not believe the current record crude oil price is justified by market fundamentals of supply and demand. I believe the surge in crude oil price, which more than doubled in the last 12 months, was mainly due to excessive speculation and not due to an unexpected shift in market fundamentals." Testimony of Fadel Gheit, Managing Director and Senior Oil Analyst, Oppenheimer Equity Research 6/23/08

tommieharris91
8/21/2008, 11:17 AM
I'm a believer that some of the wrong people are in the commodities markets right now. I mean, rice is limit up today for geopolitical reasons. WTF does that mean?

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 01:43 PM
What you have seen over the last month in the drop of oil prices is the speculators running from the beam of light that has been put on them.

They are alike cocka roaches - Tony Montana

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 02:13 PM
I'm not saying it is the best thing for the market, or for the consumer. I am saying that they are (apparently legally) exploiting a flaw in the system. Traders (stock, commodities, real estate, whatever) are in the business of uncovering and exploiting the glitches in the system, with hopes that others won't figure out what they are up to.

The really smart ones purposely manipulate the market through any legal means possible, which sometimes includes influencing others' buy/sell motives by buying or selling themselves, which often has nothing to do with the natural balance of supply and demand.

When it becomes obvious that one of those methods gives unfair advantage to one group, the government generally passes laws aimed at stopping this. Insider trading laws are an example. Perhaps one will now be passed in light of this new information.

But to suggest that people should be executed or have their hands chopped off for (ostensibly) legally exploiting a loophole marginalizes your argument.

Frozen Sooner
8/21/2008, 02:18 PM
I'm generally in favor of chopping off hands.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 02:20 PM
http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/my_hair_is_huuuge.thumbnail.jpg

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 03:12 PM
I'm not saying it is the best thing for the market, or for the consumer. I am saying that they are (apparently legally) exploiting a flaw in the system.

There was a failsafe, it was removed by deregulation from the Bush administration........just saying. :rolleyes:

tommieharris91
8/21/2008, 03:16 PM
There was a failsafe, it was removed by deregulation from the Bush administration........just saying. :rolleyes:

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.
:confused:

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 03:17 PM
There was a failsafe, it was removed by deregulation from the Bush administration........just saying. :rolleyes:
OK, now you're making it political. That's fine, and expected. It's also fair to criticize the administration for making the change. But you still haven't demonstrated why the people who legally made money based on the change in regulation should be executed, or have their hands chopped off.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 03:20 PM
Also, like TH91 just demonstrated, it appears the changes were actually made under the Clinton administration.

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 03:21 PM
:confused:
I stand corrected, the Republican congress then.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 03:25 PM
Of course.

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 03:34 PM
Of course.
I also lay blame at Clinton's feet for signing it too, just proves he has a price as well.

Chuck Bao
8/21/2008, 04:10 PM
It is not only the oil market, but all stock, currency, debt markets, that are being influenced by the weight of short-term fund flows.

It shouldn't be illegal or restricted, I agree. But, I do expect that smart people should be smarter than that.

I've been saying this for years (at least since the start of the Asian economic crisis in 1997, which in hindsight was pretty stupid) and it seems to be getting progressively worse since then.

The global markets are not getting more rational and efficient with substantially high volume trading and all of the derivative products artificially created from that. They are getting increasingly short-term oriented and volatile.

It doesn't take long to figure out that the analysts appearing on the major financial networks are working off of sets of assumptions justifying the latest trend.

In short, we need more contrarians and less of the herd mentality. Most of the guys actually pushing the buttons are the herd variety.

Kudos to the guys in Switzerland for playing along. I can't blame them.

StoopTroup
8/21/2008, 04:33 PM
I think what's gone wrong with Capitalism is a problem with Business Ethics.

Lets say these Companies were trading/speculating in something that is used to cure every ailment known to man and they...through no fault of their own had accidently cornered the market.

Now...they haven't done anything wrong and there is a possibilty they could now cure anyone rich enough to buy what is needed to cure them and they choose to let say 100,000,000 people die instead of making it affordable to everyone.

Oil has become a necessity for everyone. We just won a War over the control of Iraquis oil.

Of course...the oil isn't really the reason we went to War...it was to free the Iraquis People. I almost forgot...again.

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 04:48 PM
Yeah ST, keep your story straight. :P

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 04:52 PM
No, we didn't just win a war over the control of Iraqi oil. Nor did we win a war to free the Iraqi people. We won a war that we (and by "we" I mean the powers that be) thought was necessary to keep Saddam from eventually gaining control of all of the oil in the region. A stated goal of his and something that would devastate the U.S. economy.

We (again, the powers that be) also believed, due to crappy intelligence and a DESIRE to believe, that Saddam had at least a modicum of capability that might allow him to attain his goal.

Of course, neither party will admit to this, because it isn't convenient to them when using the war to asassinate the character of their opponents, and to attain their number one (and in effect only) goal, to get/retain power.

Frozen Sooner
8/21/2008, 04:55 PM
Wait, I thought that it wasn't a war for oil? ;)

Can someone call me when we get to hand-choppin' time? You have to have some expertise with this-gotta hit right at the joint, or you end up sawing through bones.

StoopTroup
8/21/2008, 04:56 PM
We won a war that we (and by "we" I mean the powers that be) thought was necessary to keep Saddam from eventually gaining control of all of the oil in the region.

OK...so we won a war to stop Saddam from controlling oil.

I thought it was about WMDs for some reason.



A stated goal of his and something that would devastate the U.S. economy.

Again...WMDs?

I'm completely lost now Jed. :D

It was about ****ING oil.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/21/2008, 05:02 PM
What kind of oil is ****ing oil?

Marking oil?

Baby-ing oil?

Pooping oil?

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 05:03 PM
:pop: K-Y?

StoopTroup
8/21/2008, 05:16 PM
Since John McCain won't actually tell the truth about Iraq and Obama never voted for the War...

Unless McCain can scare enough Americans into voting for him, He's going to have a hard time convincing enough people that the next Administration of Republicans will turn this thing around. Lots of folks don't trust the Republican Party right now. If you want to defend your party...go ahead. It's just sad to watch you do it IMO. Admit things are messed up.

I'll admit that the Democratic Party has some of the worst human beings I've ever seen in my lifetime.

The thing is...so do the Republicans.

We've seen plenty of them get flushed out of office over the last 10 years.

Hopefully it's a trend that both Party's will continue.

Obama has McCain over a barrel if McCain runs on a "I'm the safest choice" IMO.

McCain really needs to convince voters that he's "IN CHARGE".

He could then crush Obama IMO.

For me...McCain is just one campaign mistake away from doing something like this....

KDwODbl3muE&feature=related

Just to keep this thread on topic....

OIL! :D

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 05:24 PM
I challenge you to find one post on this board since the start of the war where I ever said this war was about anything OTHER than oil. My take is different from the people who suggest it was to make the President's cronies rich, though.

"National Security," as far as the U.S. is concerned, means in part a safe U.S. economy, which currently demands free-flowing middle east oil. I believe that, based on what we thought Saddam was up to, it (at the time) seemed a huge risk to national security to allow him to keep up his sabre-rattling and posturing. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and it's pretty apparent he was a cardboard warrior. But he certainly did everything he could to keep up appearances, and not only GWB was hornswaggled by it, despite what the revisionists will tell you these days.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 05:39 PM
And yeah, WMD's were part of the equation. We all (the Republicans, the Democrats, the Clintons, GWB, the military, the intelligence community, the U.N., the Europeans, the U.S. public, me, and even you, unless you were part of probably one or two percent of the American public) we ALL thought he owned or was working to attain WMDs. Saddam himself fed the perception.

And it's fair to say that the intelligence community was inept, that the administration bungled communications, and that GWB wanted perhaps too desperately to believe. And it's also fair to say that they all had a responsiblity to know the real truth, regardless of whether it fit neatly into the way they WANTED the world to be.

But at the end of the day, if Saddam Hussein had posessed WMDs, he was eventually going to make a play for more oil producing countries. He was very open about his desire to unify all of those countries under his rule. And if it had been allowed to happen, the oil-starved U.S. economy would have sustained an epic plunge into oblivion. So, as long as you (even erroneously) believed he had intent and something even approaching capability, you all but HAD to take him out.

THAT'S what this war was about.

soonersn20xx
8/21/2008, 05:43 PM
I agree Jed, but removing Saddam didn't require an invasion........strike force or unmanned drones could have done the job. Only the head needed to be cut off, it was rather short-sighted to think we could send a 100,000 army in and blow everything up and think it would be over in six months.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 05:47 PM
That's a whole other subject. I'll just say that GWB isn't the first person to make that mistake. Anglos have a rich tradition of underestimating the sectarian hatred residents of the middle east hold for one another.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 05:47 PM
In other words, I blame it all on the Brits.

Frozen Sooner
8/21/2008, 06:00 PM
I agree Jed, but removing Saddam didn't require an invasion........strike force or unmanned drones could have done the job. Only the head needed to be cut off, it was rather short-sighted to think we could send a 100,000 army in and blow everything up and think it would be over in six months.

Assassination of foriegn heads of state was, at that time, against the official position of the United States Govermnet by Executive Order.

BigRedJed
8/21/2008, 06:03 PM
Apparently, so is executing or cutting off the hands of people who legally work the system to gain excessive profit. Who knew?

:confused:

Frozen Sooner
8/21/2008, 06:12 PM
Apparently, so is executing or cutting off the hands of people who legally work the system to gain excessive profit. Who knew?

:confused:

Well, that's certainly a law that could have used a signing statement if I've ever heard one.

"I am signing this anti-hand-cutting-off legislation into law. However, this cannot curtail the federal government's ability to cut off hands."

StoopTroup
8/21/2008, 07:10 PM
I'm just busting ya ballz a little Jed.

You usually don't let them hang out like that...have you been drinking? ;)

I think most everyone on this board wishes things would get better ASAP.

Since that Idiot McVeigh and the 911 dolts messed with us...on top of losing so many of our Men and Women...we deserve a darn break.

Thank God Football Season is here.

Boomer Sooner ! ! !

ST

olevetonahill
8/23/2008, 05:12 AM
I agree Jed, but removing Saddam didn't require an invasion........strike force or unmanned drones could have done the job. Only the head needed to be cut off, it was rather short-sighted to think we could send a 100,000 army in and blow everything up and think it would be over in six months.

In the Famous words Of OpenaCan
Does it Hurt to be That stupid ?:mad: :pop:

Harry Beanbag
8/23/2008, 10:31 AM
In the Famous words Of OpenaCan
Does it Hurt to be That stupid ?:mad: :pop:

I think ignorance masks the pain.

soonersn20xx
8/23/2008, 11:08 AM
In the Famous words Of OpenaCan
Does it Hurt to be That stupid ?:mad: :pop:
Speaking of namecalling.......