Showing posts with label trading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trading. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Congess' outrageous insider trading

Corporate executives, members of the executive branch and all federal judges are subject to strict conflict of interest rules. But not the people who write the laws.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/congress_insider_trading/index.htm?section=money_topstories

"60 Minutes" had a recent report exposing the egregious insider trading conducted by members of Congress that is technically not illegal for them, but would put normal people in the slammer. Sensing that the gig is up and anticipating public outcry, the Senate is now resuscitating 2004's STOCK Act: a failed bill to explicitly ban insider trading by Congress, and require more frequent public disclosure of lawmakers' trading activities. In order to look ethical leading up to an election year, the bill has currently attracted 171 co-signers (possibly a record), whereas it couldn't get an ounce of support during its original drafting. Some critics say that the bill is unnecessary because regular trading laws already apply to Congress, and they are not "insider" employees of the companies whose securities they trade. But of course neither was Martha Stewart.

As an example, take September 2008. Lehman was about to go under, and the whole system was on the edge. Paulson and Bernanke called a select group of lawmakers for ultra-secret meetings to break the bad news and plan responses. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but one of the attendees, the ranking GOP on the House Fin. Svcs. Cmte., AL's Spencer Bachus, suddenly bought a massive amount of options that would pay out if the market tanked. Bachus was one of our elected officials who was supposed to avert the crisis, yet he had a clear financial incentive to let the market plummet. WTF?

Maybe another coincidence, but current House Speaker Boehner was trading in health insurance stocks during the health reform debate. Shortly before Washington decided to kill the public option proposal, Boehner bought shares of private insurance companies when everyone else was bearish on them. And of course with the news of the public option's demise, insurer's stock prices rose and he made money.

We already know that most legislators leave DC much richer than when they arrived (and it's not because of their generous salaries). They make decisions with millions or billions at stake, so of course private interests attempt to sway their opinions with bribes. It's not as bad as Nigeria or Iraq, but it happens here plenty. On top of that they need to play the markets too? Aren't they too busy running the country and serving their constituents to trade on the side? Most of us don't even have 5 min a day to watch the tickers, but trading is much easier when you are way ahead of the information curve. It's ridiculous, they are beyond shame.

Take this other example involving IPOs:

If you were a senator... and I gave you $10,000 cash, one or both of us is probably gonna go to jail. But if I'm a corporate executive and you're a senator, and I give you IPO shares in stock and over the course of one day that stock nets you $100,000, that's completely legal.

Look at Pelosi's reaction to questions about her profiting from the 2008 Visa IPO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0LMAP0L5G4

She claims to fight the big banks and help ordinary Americans, yet she accepted shares in Visa while helping to kill CC reform legislation back then that could have saved Americans billions during this horrible recession. The specific reform was eventually signed into law in 2010, but banks got 2 precious years to restructure their revenue models in anticipation of this change. So clearly it's not just a GOP problem.

I would go further than the STOCK Act: Congressmen can't trade in any equity, real estate, or international securities while in office, AND one year thereafter. Maybe bar their immediate families too. They get the pension anyway, why the need for more cap. gains? They can park their money in a 1% CD or money market account like the rest of us saps. They are public servants after all, and servants sacrifice, they don't get rich. How bad would it look if a US soldier in Iraq was in charge of protecting a BP facility, but one night insurgents blow it up? Then later his superiors find out that he was shorting BP stock a week before the incident. As far as I know, FDA employees aren't allowed to trade in stocks of the companies they're auditing, and I think employees at the Fed and Treasury have to sell all their financial stock before taking the job too. It's common sense, so why is Congress somehow exempt? Are they saints? I would also copy China and EXECUTE public officials convicted of corruption, fraud, etc. I'm against capital punishment except for this. I know China's policy hasn't fully stopped the problem, but at least it sends a message that people can't just profit with impunity and make a mockery of the law/public office. But this is America, the country that pardoned Tricky Dick. So tired of this crap.  

From "60 Minutes":
But what baffles Baird even more is that the situation has gotten worse. In the past few years a whole new totally unregulated, $100 million dollar industry has grown up in Washington called political intelligence. It employs former congressmen and former staffers to scour the halls of the Capitol gathering valuable non-public information then selling it to hedge funds and traders on Wall Street who can trade on it.

Baird says its taken what would be a criminal enterprise anyplace else in the country and turned it into a profitable business model.
Baird: The town is all about people saying-- what do you know that I don't know. This is the currency of Washington, D.C. And it's that kind of informational currency that translates into real currency. Maybe it's over drinks maybe somebody picks up a phone. And says you know just to let you know it's in the bill. Trades happen. Can't trace 'em. If you can trace 'em, it's not illegal. It's a pretty great system. You feel like an idiot to not take advantage of it.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

More on oil

There's an interesting briefing on oil in last week's Economist which takes a fairly different tone.

The section Stocks, bonds and barrels in http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11453090 argues against the suggestion that price increases are the result of speculation. They look at other commodity markets which have seen similar market behavior without similar price behavior, and look at the ability of futures trading to effect the market price. The financial analysis is interesting, but it basically boils down to this: the market is set by supply and demand of real barrels, and oil speculators are not hoarding barrels. The Economist's read on the furor about speculators is that this is political hay-making: politicians are desperately afraid of an election year with radically high oil prices, and they're searching frantically for a way to deflect blame. "Wall Street fat cats" are a great populist target for that sort of thing. It's worth noting that the CFTC, the government's own regulator for commodities markets, investigated oil speculation and found little reason for concern - it's the CFTC's chief economist who's getting cited most frequently in the "no it's not speculation" camp.

Their suggestion is that price increases have a more prosaic basis in supply and demand. Oil is a commodity with very little short-term demand elasticity (if the price goes up, people generally pay it rather than doing without) and very little short-term supply elasticity (it takes years to find/develop new fields). And it's a market which suffers various short-term supply shocks: much of the world's oil production is in countries where the rule of law is less than complete, and every time rebels blow up a pipeline there's a price movement. There's a good discussion of this at the end of the previously-linked article ... my knowledge of the differences between heavy and light crude and the various manufacturing impacts there was pretty minimal, and they have some interesting data.

There's some interesting commentary on the effects of fuel subsidies in http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11453151. In China, for example, the price of petrol to a consumer hasn't risen since the start of the year (during which time the price in the US has increases 33%) because of government subsidies there. That helps reduce the elasticity of demand, and also apparently is causing Chinese oil firms to reduce their output.

Finally, there is a hopeful point underneath all of this. From their leader article, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11454989:

"The 1970s showed how demand and supply, inelastic in the short run, eventually give rise to conservation and new production. When all those new fields are on-stream, when the SUVs have been sold and the boilers replaced, the downcycle will take hold. By then the slow-motion oil shock could have catalysed momentous change. Right now motorists have no substitute for oil. But it is no coincidence that car companies are suddenly accelerating their plans to sell electric hybrids that are far cheaper to run than petrol or diesel cars at these prices. The first two oil shocks banished oil from power generation. How fitting if the third finished the job and began to free transport from oil's century-long monopoly."

----------

Thanks for the links and I'd tend to trust E's analysis over CNN's, but of course there are many sides to this issue and some journalists (and bloggers) tend to get myopic to make their argument, obviously myself included. So probably the truth is a combination of many factors. I don't believe that speculation is a stronger force than traditional supply/demand, but we can't just dismiss it completely. When the oil companies themselves are reaping huge profits yet claiming the sky-high prices are a result of "supply and demand economics", I think that's a smoke screen that may even suggest the converse.

I agree that big shot Wall Street banks are an easy and maybe exaggerated culprit to blame in an election year. You are right that the CFTC experts dispute the effect of speculation on oil futures trading, but what else can they say? It's hard for them to collect meaningful data and draw any conclusions actually, since they lack access to so much of the trading that is offshore or OTC without public disclosure. If they admit that speculators are manipulating prices, then they effectively confess their incompetence and impotence as regulators. However, the oil traders themselves are saying the opposite. I know some people have incentive to dress up the truth based on their priorities, but why would the oil traders accuse the hedge funds of meddling if they were actually causing no harm? Oil traders are professionals who do this for a living, and they are saying the recent influx of Wall Street billions are making their lives more difficult. And yes, it's a two-way street as the article said. Trading activity doesn't just make the price go up, but high prices encourage more investment so they don't miss the boat if the price goes even higher.

But here's where the conventional supply/demand arguments get tricky. Oil's record rise from $70 to $130 over the past year is actually not reflected at the pump. And the price trickle-down delay from NYMEX to the pump is a month or less, so we should have seen a bigger change. If gasoline prices went up commensurate with oil's, gas would be at or over $6/gallon (taxes and surcharges included). Diesel is so much higher than regular gas because of recent refining capacity miscalculations, but even diesel hasn't reached $6 yet. Actually automobile fuel accounts for only 8% or so of US oil consumption (according to the link below), so even if the whole country drives 30% less (quite a challenge), we're reducing overall US fossil fuel consumption by a measley 2.5%. So much of our consumption is inelastically tied to industry, power/heating, and commercial transport, so it's much harder for them to conserve since they have business operations to run. Fishermen and truckers in Europe protested their diesel prices, but the airlines are getting screwed even worse. So sure global demand is going up, but only about 1M barrels/year or 1.25% according to The E graph, so why did prices rise nearly 100%? Well as you said, people get somewhat irrational when it comes to securing energy supplies, since a shortage is so catastrophic to an industrialized nation. So it's scary that traders are willing to buy up futures contracts like crazy, even at $130.

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Another argument The E makes doesn't seem to hold water. They say that oil prices are tremendously sensitive to even small supply disruptions. That may be true in general, but it can't explain the recent price jump, because there have been no significant crises in oil producing zones besides the brief border standoff between Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia. And on the flipside, during the bad two years where we had Katrina, genocide in Darfur, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, posturing for war with Iran, a plummetting dollar, a nuclear test in N Korea, and overt civil war in Iraq, oil prices did not surge as much as now!

Maybe we haven't reached Peak Oil yet, but it looks fairly close. According to my mom (30 years in the business), global output in most countries has plateaued or decreased since 2000, and only the Saudis and UAE have excess capacity, but it's like 3% or less. All the "low hanging fruit" and easy oil wells are maxed out. Now we have to drill deeper through tougher rock (in land or water) if we want to access new reserves. Russia and China have probably lied for years about their domestic production and stockpiling, so it's hard to tell what is going on over there, but it's not like Putin is sitting on 10% excess capacity. As The E said, refining and drilling overhead has risen over 70% since 2000, so it's more expensive to maintain historical production levels, but the obscene trading prices more than compensate. Therefore, nations and companies have little incentive to explore more, innovate, and increase supply to keep up with demand (the Saudis basically laughed in Bush's face when he begged them to boost output). Why would they risk out-pacing demand and making the price dip? They'll only act when their best wells start to run out, but there are plenty of new technologies to extract the last drops of oil from wells previously thought to be dry, if you have the skilled workforce and industrial capacity to implement them.

I just feel bad because these price jumps hurt the poor the most, as usual, and it's worse abroad. So if rich Westermers are profiting from that through trading, it's unacceptable. These funds just grow wealth for their clients yet add no value to the host industry; at least oil companies reinvest their windfall profits in R&D to improve future production. And as your last link showed, plenty of less developed oil-producing nations are forced to subsidize energy and even import refined fuels, or their people won't be able to afford it and they couldn't keep up with consumption. Plus they'll revolt against the government, as we saw in Iran when they decided to implement gas rations in preparation for a possible UN embargo/US war over their nuclear program. Most of the nations on that list could use a lot of improvement to their schools, health care, infrastructure, etc. Their huge oil profits could help, but much of it has to be siphoned off for subsidizing ever more expensive fuel (and military spending to defend against a possible Bush invasion). It's not their fault the prices are rising at NYMEX (they are at max capacity), but they're hurting too - just in other areas besides the explicit price at the pump.

-------

One thing to keep in mind is that the term "speculation" is being used in a rather loose fashion; most commentators include the creation of ETFs and Index Funds which deal exclusively in oil (and, implicitly, oil futures contracts) when attributing the rapid increases in prices & volatility to "speculation". I read the articles you referenced this last weekend... though the only one I shared via Google Reader was the article regarding inflation (the indisputable result of sustained increases in energy prices).

-------

Well I guess after the first Gulf War, there was more or less global political stability, drilling/pipeline technologies were improving, and nations like Venezuela, the former Soviet bloc, and OPEC as a whole were growing output, so the excess supply made the global price of oil plummet to below $20/barrel. Companies had to tighten their belts and even universities closed their petroleum engineering departments for lack of interest/funding. So I'm sure that oil producing nations/companies were secretly (or not) celebrating when Bush went into Iraq - the shot in the arm that the industry craved. BTW, Iraqi production has still not yet returned to late 1980s levels under Saddam (post Iran-Iraq War of course).

If I may address some of R & J's last points for a bit: well, I tend to think that commodities futures index funds are speculative by nature. They're betting on prices to move the way they want, and even if prices dip they can potentially sell short. Diversification aside, if there were more attractive investment options, they would take them. Investment in commodities funds has increase ten-fold in the last few years.

Actually that CNN piece did bring up a good point that no one wanted to comment on, the influence of the credit crunch. With the dollar weak and interest rates at stupid low levels, of course commodities look more attractive. Why have foodstuffs, precious metals, and energy all made astronomical gains during the same short time period? Asia is buying up more food, energy, and jewelry than ever before, but it can't be explained away by supply/demand, since the West still accounts for the majority of trading/consumption. I guess on the surface there is nothing wrong with investing in commodities futures; it can be a safe move. But I don't know much about this subject. However, when a fund buys up a million shares of Google or GE, they're not really hurting anyone, no matter how the stock moves. Of course huge sell-offs can hurt other investors, but buying up stocks doesn't seem to have many negative side-effects, apart from artificially inflating market cap. But when speculators are massively buying up commodities, they impact the people who are competing for those resources and may not be able to withstand large price spikes. How can people living on less than $5/day, and their struggling governments, afford 70% jumps in basic essentials that Wall Street traders casually toss around like baseballs? By playing that market, they are essentially "playing with people's lives", which is what I object to. Commodities are consummables that people depend on for survival, not just pieces of paper or blips on a broker's computer. It almost reminds me of The Grapes of Wrath during the Depression, where big farmers in CA would rather destroy their excess produce than give it to the starving Okies, in order to keep the market prices from falling. But all the while, the poor people's wrath was growing, and it's growing again now.

And like J said, shortages and rising prices are the only factors that can ultimately get stubborn economies to move towards better efficiency and alternative sources. However, this change won't come overnight, so what do the disadvantaged people do in the meantime who are dependent on prices not surpassing a certain threshold? And we're way beyond that threshold for some commodities already. Some people need to drive to work and feed families of 8. They are conserving because they have to. Some people don't have the ability or mobility to change jobs or some living habits though (socioeconomic factors are more to blame than personal choices in those cases). Of course well-to-do people, who may be the ones most able to conserve and still maintain a quality life, keep over-consuming because they can afford to. Without subsidies and donations, probably a billion people wouldn't be able to eat or travel with these current prices, some even as close to home as Tracy, CA. So yes, the high prices are affecting consumer habits and what companies are able to provide us. Whole Foods is losing business, airlines are laying off thousands and cutting routes, and GM is contemplating the future of their Hummer line. On the flipside, VC investment in green tech is growing rapidly, though not all American cities can benefit from growth in this new sector (actually the sad part is the growth is in areas that are already rich, like urban CA). So while the industrialized world is transitioning to a new way of living and working under the realities of $100 oil, what do the underclasses do in the meantime?

Friday, May 30, 2008

Oil speculation and more energy trading oversight

Recent stuff from CNN on energy trading and a probe into possible manipulation of oil prices (my emphasis/comments in red). An interesting snippet:

"But Beutel doesn't blame these funds for wanting to diversify their portfolio by investing in oil. If anyone is to blame, he says, it's the Federal Reserve, which has been predictably cutting interest rates since September to shore up credit markets. When interest rates fall, investors flock to commodities as an inflation hedge. "The Fed tipped their hand," he said. '[The big funds] were basically told by [Fed Chairman Ben] Bernanke that this is where the money is.'"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/30/news/economy/oil_cftc/index.htm?section=money_latest
Oil trading probe may uncover manipulation
But overall, any wrongdoing is likely to play a small part in soaring crude prices. Meanwhile, speculators aren't expected to hang.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Amid soaring oil prices that some say are caused by nothing more than rampant speculation, the government Thursday announced a wide ranging probe into oil price manipulation and said it would get more information on the effect investors are having on the market. The measures, undertaken by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission after pressure from angry lawmakers, do two things. First, they'll attempt to gather more information from index funds and other non-commercial users of oil. They'll also seek information on oil trades made outside the U.S. on exchanges like the IntercontinentalExchange Europe (ICE) where the CFTC has no oversight and has been unable to get more detailed information.
The second thing on the CFTC's agenda is an actual investigation into possible price manipulation - most likely by a commercial user of oil like a production company, shipping company, or storage company.
Recent investor interest in commodities is an issue of intense debate. Some say investors, who have been funneling money into oil and other commodities over the last several months amid rising inflation and falling stock prices, are unjustifiably driving up the price of oil and gas simply because they have no other place to put their money. Others say tight supply and strong demand are the real reasons behind this investor interest, and the market is functioning properly to limit demand and increase supply. CFTC has previously said that it has not found any evidence that speculators were artificially inflating prices.
"Data used by Commission staff show that price changes are largely unrelated to fund trading," according to written testimony before a Senate hearing earlier this month by CFTC Chief Economist Jeffrey Harris. "Broad-based manipulative forces are not driving the recent higher futures prices in commodities across-the-board."
Neither Harris nor any other economist at the CFTC could not be reached for comment. According to a chart presented in its congressional testimony it appears the CFTC used data from 2007 to reach its conclusion. But he said oil traders see this request for additional information as perhaps a precursor to broader regulation, like increasing the amount of contracts speculators are allowed to hold or raising the amount of money investors have to put down to buy those contracts. "The fear that this might happen may drive people out of the market," he said. "There could be a run for the gates."
Oil prices fell Thursday by over $4, one of the biggest declines in recent weeks. One expert attributed the slide to the investigation. "The traders now know that someone is looking over their shoulder," said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland and a former CFTC official. "Their phony sales are being watched, and in one day there was the biggest drop in 2 1/2 months." [If their trading is all legit and not manipulating the price, then why would they run for the hills at the first mention of "regulation"?]
If there is a run for the gates, he said prices may or may not fall, but liquidity would be reduced, leaving the market more vulnerable to manipulation by a single participant. And that's the second thing the CFTC is looking into - "practices surrounding the purchase, transportation, storage, and trading of crude oil and related derivative contracts," the agency said in a statement.
This most likely means manipulation of the physical oil market, not typically done by speculators but rather by commercial players who might literally withhold oil from the market in an attempt to drive prices higher. The CFTC has found evidence of this in the past. BP recently settled a suit that alleged the company tried to corner the propane market to inflate prices in 2003 and 2004. BP agreed to pay a $303 million settlement. Haigh thinks it's likely CFTC will find evidence of this again given that the agency has been investigating for six months and has now chosen to make it public. But he stressed that a single player acting alone would in all likelihood not have a huge influence on prices. [Well, even if one or a few greedy bastards won't seriously impact prices, an example has to be made that such conduct is unacceptable]
"This investigation is just a way for the government to divert attention away from the fact that it hasn't created a viable energy policy," said Mike Fitzpatrick, an analyst at the brokerage MF Global in New York. "Ultimately, fundamentals rule the markets...this investigation is going to wind up producing nothing."
Not everyone agrees fundamentals rule the market. "There is a theory that the price of crude oil is being driven up not by supply and demand principles, but by speculators using what are called dark markets, markets that can't be watched by the public or regulators, to manipulate the price of crude," said Greenberger.
First Published: May 30, 2008: 2:57 PM EDT
Oil prices: Wall Street's gameIs $130 oil a bubble?
Oil prices: Wall Street's game
Big fund money is flowing into oil markets sending prices to levels never seen before. Is it profiteering or an essential way to ensure supply?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- There's no question about it: A new breed of speculator is pouring money into the oil market. What's less certain is whether this new money is responsible for driving up prices or essential to a healthy market. Many blame record prices on Wall Street investors new to the oil market, saying they're bidding up gas prices to artificially high levels - and soaking drivers. As oil nears $130 a barrel, some say $10 to $70 of that price is due to Wall Street speculation.
But that's not the whole story. Nearly everyone agrees that speculators have always been essential to a functioning market and that oil prices could be much higher without them. What's harder to understand is the effect of new speculators flowing into commodities from big-money funds like university endowments, pensions and indexes. Some say they're a good influence. In addition to limiting demand, they make it easier to sell oil contracts and create a larger market where prices are less susceptible to big swings following individual trades - known as liquidity in financial speak. This camp says $130 oil is justified since demand is rising faster than supply.
Others say big-fund money is making it harder for traditional oil speculators to do their job. This camp says big funds distort traditional models used to predict prices and think $130 oil is a bubble ready to pop.
Traditionally, a futures speculator bets on the direction of commodity prices and then guarantees that commodity at that price to a client. This removes some of the risk - and greases the wheels of commerce. Speculators originated in the food market, and were intended to give farmers a set price in the spring to buy seed, according to Peter Beutel, an oil analyst at Cameron Hanover. For example, a speculator would offer a farmer $3.50 in April for a bushel of corn to be delivered and paid for in October - these are called futures contracts. The speculator hopes that by October corn will sell for $4, and he'll make money. The farmer can plant his fields certain that he's making $3.50 a bushel.
Conversely, a speculator might bet the price of corn will fall. He might offer to sell a bushel to a corn bread maker at $3.50 in April for corn to be delivered in October. If corn falls to $3 by October, the speculator comes out on top. The deal allows the bread maker to make long term business decisions, like how many employees to hire. Without this transparent marketplace, uncertainty would be priced into the product, resulting in higher costs for everyone. Although the lines between producer, consumer and speculator have been blurred in recent years, this same dynamic is at work in today's oil and gas markets.
"We're trying to get some type of cost certainty," said Brad Samples, a commodities analyst at Summit Energy in Louisville, Ky. Summit buys energy for clients who use lots of it. One client, Samples says, goes through about $15 million a year in diesel fuel, and it's Samples' job to make sure it gets a good deal at a consistent price.
When Samples buys a contract, he needs someone to sell it to him, usually a bank. To manage the financial risk, the bank will go out and sell that contract to someone else - in other words, a speculator. Sometimes that person might be someone like George Zivic, managing partner at Almanac Capital, a commodity investment firm. For him, the influx of big-fund money betting oil prices will move in one direction - in this case up - into the commodities market is a challenge. Before the new money, price movements were more predictable. For example, in the spring gasoline usually rises in tandem with crude, and Almanac and other related firms would look to make their money by betting on the difference between the two.
This year that hasn't happened - oil prices have greatly outpaced gasoline - and that's made making money in this market more difficult. He blames some of the schism on big-fund money betting oil prices will only go up. "When you have directional money, it makes the historical relationships distorted," he said. "There's no short term shortage of oil. $127 a barrel doesn't make sense."
Beutel, from the consultancy Cameron Hanover and a former NYMEX floor trader, goes even further in blaming big-fund money. "We want to see them out, they have no respect for our markets at all," he said.
But Beutel doesn't blame these funds for wanting to diversify their portfolio by investing in oil. If anyone is to blame, he says, it's the Federal Reserve, which has been predictably cutting interest rates since September to shore up credit markets. When interest rates fall, investors flock to commodities as an inflation hedge. "The Fed tipped their hand," he said. "[The big funds] were basically told by [Fed Chairman Ben] Bernanke that this is where the money is."
And if the money is there, why wouldn't the big funds take advantage of it? "We are following for us what is a prudent strategy to maximize investment returns, said Clark McKinley, a spokesman for CalPERS, California's pension fund for workers in the public sector. "Obviously, there's some unintended consequences."
Not everyone agrees big-fund money is playing a role in driving up prices, starting with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the government's own regulatory agency. Economists at the CFTC have testified that after studying all the numbers on who is trading what, there is no evidence speculators of any kind are significantly driving up the price of crude. 'You can't just point the finger at speculators," said Michael Haigh, head of U.S. commodities research at the investment bank Société Générale and a former economist at the CFTC. "Fundamentally, the markets are where they are supposed to be."
Haigh said that big-money funds are not just dumping their money onto the market - only betting prices will go up. He and others say these funds are sophisticated investors and take a variety of positions in the market. Deutsche Bank took a somewhat novel approach in investigating the role of speculative money. Analysts there looked at the price of commodities that do not trade in a futures market and came to basically the same conclusion. "The rally in non-exchange traded commodity prices since the end of 2002 has been similar if not greater in magnitude," the bank's analysts wrote in a research note. "We believe this refutes the claim that speculators have been the primary drivers of rising commodity prices during this cycle."
Members of Congress, their ears bent by angry motorists paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, are considering increasing the amount of money investors have to put up front in order to buy oil futures. Some say this may work, as a lot of the investor interest in commodities is due to the fact that they can essentially gamble with a million dollars worth of oil by putting up $100,000 or less of their own money. In the stock market, they'd need to put up $500,000. But others say increasing these requirements - known as margin requirements - would merely drive oil trading into less regulated markets where information would be even harder to track.
The motorist organization AAA doesn't have an opinion on what Congress should do. But like many American drivers, they've certainly noticed that oil prices have shot up $50 a barrel since August at the same time that the stock market tanked, while the supply and demand picture for oil remained little changed. "After Israel invaded Lebanon, Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, all of these situations, we haven't seen prices rise to these levels," said AAA spokesman Geoff Sundstrom. "We have to wonder if the foundation behind these very high prices is nothing more than speculation."

First Published: May 16, 2008: 3:58 AM EDT
Why $120 oil is goodDrilling for oil in the Arctic