Tag Archives: energies

Overheated Heating Oil Market

I was fortunate enough to be interviewed for a Wall Street Journal heating oil story last week. The primary question was, “How high can prices soar?”  Supplies have tightened up considerably during Mother Nature’s onslaught and another bout of cold weather is hitting us, pushing prices higher yet again. Short-term demand related issues like the ones we’re experiencing now due to the weather are never a reason to jump into a market. My less than sensational outlook on current prices pushed me to the closing section of the article. This week, I’ll expand on the topic by looking at the diesel and heating oil markets and formulating a trading plan for the current setup.

Continue reading Overheated Heating Oil Market

Sell the Rally in Natural Gas

The recent bout of record breaking low temperatures has led to an obvious increase in the demand for natural gas and pushed delivery prices up to $4.40 per million metric British thermal units (mmbtu). These are the highest prices we’ve seen since the heat wave and drought from the summer of 2011. In fact, the Energy Information Administration reported the largest natural gas draw for the week of December 13th since they began tracking it in 1994. Furthermore, many analysts expect to break this record yet again with this week’s report. However, in spite of the recent strength in the market, I believe that there are several structural reasons why this rally won’t last and that the pricing of forward natural gas will head lower from here.

Continue reading Sell the Rally in Natural Gas

Energy in the U.S. and China

The global energy market recently passed two milestones. First, China passed the US as the number one importer of crude oil in the world in September. Second, the US passed Saudi Arabia as the largest fossil fuel producer in the world last week. Neither of these incidents came as a surprise. Both trends have been progressing roughly as expected. However, now that we’ve reached critical mass in forcing the evolution of the global energy markets, it’s time to take a look at some of the longer-term changes that will arise as a result of these events.

China was destined to become the number one energy importer due to its population growth, economic growth and geography. While we are concerned about whether the effects of the government shutdown may trim two percentage points off of our third quarter GDP of less than 2%, the Chinese have been chugging along at GDP near 8% and haven’t seen their Gross Domestic Product drop below 6% since 1991. The economic boom in China is still in full swing. Speculative phases like warehouse space or production facilities may have been overbuilt just like their housing markets but the infrastructure buildup remains in full force. The governmentally sponsored projects continue to redefine the Chinese way of life through the addition of roads, bridges, trains and power plants.

The growth in China comes as we isolate ourselves here in North America. China is still our second largest trade partner. Most of our trade with them is at the cheap manufacturing level. Meanwhile our number one trade partner has become Canada. Our trade with Canada is much nearer to equal than our Chinese trading relationship. According to the July, 2013 US Census, our trade with Canada occurs at a 7% deficit while we import 280% more goods from China than we export to them. Our growing isolationism can be confirmed since Mexico is our third largest trade partner.

This brings us back to Saudi Arabia and energy production. There are two main reasons for our declining ties to Saudi oil. First of all, American vehicles have become more fuel-efficient. The University of Michigan tracks average fuel efficiency of all new cars sold on a monthly basis. There has been a 20% increase in the fuel efficiency since 2007. Furthermore, the, “Cash for Clunkers” program took approximately 700,000 inefficient vehicles off the market further adding to the overall efficiency of our current fleet. Secondly, fracking and tar sands production have vaulted the US into the leading petro-chemical producer in the world. Saudi Arabia and Russia still produce more oil but our total distillate output has surpassed them.

These major trends will continue for many years into the future. The US is expected to become fully energy independent by 2020. Meanwhile, China will become increasingly dependent on world supplies. We used the following example in describing the growth of the Chinese hog market a few years ago and the comparison still fits. The Chinese story is all about developing a new middle class and putting newly disposable income into new hands. The first new expenses are better food, clothing and shelter. Moving up the ladder, the new middle class expands into luxury goods like cars and vacation travel. The average Chinese person uses about 3 barrels of crude oil per year. The average US citizen use more than 21 barrels per year. Clearly, this gap has room to close as the new Chinese middle class continues to westernize.

The growing demands of the Chinese middle class will change the way China conducts itself in global politics. Energy analysts at Wood McKenzie expect China to claim as much as 70% of the global oil imports by 2020. Therefore, at the same time the US becomes energy self-sufficient, China will become even more energy dependent. This will place them in a different role regarding global peace, especially in the Middle East, as unrest there will affect their country more than anyone else. This should cause China to continue to grow their military, especially their naval power and should have the unintended benefit of allowing us to scale back our military investments. Hopefully, the politicians here won’t spin this into another cold war as an excuse to renew domestic military investment

China’s growing need to purchase oil on the global market will force their hand in freeing up their currency to float.  Trade partners will not do business in a currency that can be manipulated at the drop of a hat. Opening their markets and allowing their currency to float will encourage investment flows in both directions. Big picture analysis suggests that this could be the catalyst towards pushing China into the dominant super power role. They have the demographics and capital necessary to generate the need for currency reserves and open markets. The last thing to develop will be the political ties towards the Middle East oil producers and finally, armed services to guarantee their trade routes remain open.

Energy Fork in the Road

One economic topic that isn’t getting the attention it deserves is the energy policy. The drought of 2012 along with the expiration of subsidies paid to ethanol blenders will make it nearly impossible to reach the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) as early as next year. The standards that were put in place to increase this country’s energy independence were based on protectionist interests and were only viable as long as ethanol produced by the U.S. was subsidized while Brazilian ethanol was simultaneously taxed.

The difference between U.S. ethanol and Brazilian ethanol is the source of their primary inputs. We use corn, which is slower to grow, harder to use and more expensive than the cane sugar Brazil uses as the feedstock for their ethanol production. It will be very interesting to hear how the Presidential candidates debate their renewable energy policies, especially as 40% of our primary crop is diverted from food to energy production. This year’s drought has created a political collision course between food costs and the Renewable Fuels Mandate as well as the Energy Independence and Security Act.

The corn market is about as American as you can get. The U.S. produces as much corn as the next two largest producers, China and Brazil, combined. Unfortunately, production will fall nearly 15% short of 2011’s 314 million tons. The current Renewable Fuels Mandate allotted 40% of last year’s corn to produce 13.95 billion gallons of renewable fuel and 2012 will require an additional 8% increase over 2011. This brings total renewable fuel sources to 15.2 billion gallons on total consumption of 134 billion gallons in 2012.

The drought has pushed corn prices to an all time high of $8.43 per bushel. While the market is now 14% lower at  $7.25, the rally has been more than enough to shatter the profit margins of ethanol blenders. The combination of expiring refining subsidies along with higher input costs is leading to the shut down of major ethanol blenders. This raises the capital market question of who’s going to be responsible for meeting the aforementioned production targets? Ethanol distillers are losing more than $.40 per gallon at the current prices.

The idea of diverting 4.7 billion bushels of an estimated 11 billion bushels in total U.S. production towards an inferior yet, more expensive product seems silly in the face of rising global food prices. This is exactly what would be required to happen to meet next year’s Mandate. Furthermore, reaching next year’s goals using the current 10% ethanol blend is nearly impossible given the current mix of gasoline and diesel motors. Diesel biofuels and biodiesels are given a 50% bonus in RFS for their lower greenhouse gas emissions as measured by the EPA. The friction this creates in meeting the Renewable Fuels Mandate is called the, “blend wall.” The blend wall is the physical limitation of production and blending facilities based on the most common 10% ethanol blend. The mandate calls for 13.8 billion gallons, 10% of expected 2013 US consumption. However, current facilities, assuming they were all open and operating at full capacity, can only produce 13.3 billion gallons of ethanol.

The candidates will have to address the subsidies that farmers and blenders are paid as well as their plan on handling imports. These are most likely, the easy issues to address. Developing a complete energy plan will also include a discussion on the much more economically friendly topic of our vast natural gas reserves which have the capacity to place us on a much more sustainable path.

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk of loss in investing in futures.

Global Glut Going Nowhere

The drop in gas prices over the last month has been a relief to us all. The economic sanctions placed by the European Union, Canada and the U.S. on Iran has simply shifted the flow of Iranian crude oil from west to east. The net result has been more oil on the global market with China, India and Russia picking up cheaper oil from Iran due to the lack of competition from western buyers. One would think that cheaper oil to the BRIC countries would be just the catalyst needed to help them develop their own internal demand for goods and services through the creation and evolution of their own middle class. Unfortunately, we are in an economic phase of global deleveraging and even the stimulus of low fuel prices will not keep their engines turning fast enough to save us from a second half slowdown here in the U.S.

The thesis of those who run our economy has been: If we can just provide enough economic grease to keep our own wheels turning the development of BRIC economies will, eventually, create demand for our goods and services. This is still probably true in the long run and the forward demand projection can be used to our advantage through tracking commercial trader purchases via the commitment of traders report. What a different world it has become when our economic horse has become hitched to someone else’s wagon.

China has been trying to engineer a soft landing for their economy through government expenditures on infrastructure and the attraction of foreign direct investment. The struggle can be seen in their manufacturing output, which has declined for seven straight months. They’ve also lowered their lending reserve requirement to stimulate financing which has dropped by 19% year over year and is at its slowest pace since Q1 of 2007. This may simply add further capacity to an already slack market in the wake of China’s 15-year building boom. This is also a futile attempt to increase home ownership, as home ownership is one of the few ways Chinese people have been allowed to invest their newfound prosperity and therefore, already represents an outsized portion of their personal portfolios. The Chinese result will sacrifice its citizens as the high water mark buyers and lead to further class separation between the builders who profited and the people who got stuck with the bill. This will leave them with little disposable income to buy our Apple computers and Fords.

The Chinese situation looks hopeful compared to India. The trouble in India is as much political as it is structural. Indian politics are confusing even to the Indian newspapers. It’s easy to go from the Times of India to India Press or any one of their nearly 2,000 daily publications and find contradictory information. Foreign businesses find it nearly impossible to find the right agencies for the right permits. Even if one does, it is quite possible that the rules will not only change but, be made retroactive thus, invalidating the entire business plan of the entity that just put the whole package together. This is exactly what happened to Wal-Mart between December of 2011 and February of this year. Permits were voided and taxes created by the new policy were made retroactive. Foreign direct investment is drying up rather than fighting its way through the bureaucratic red tape.

This still leaves Brazil and Russia to save us. Brazil just passed England to become the sixth largest global economy. However, Brazil’s balance of trade slipped into negative territory early this year for the first time since the economic crisis and once again ten years prior to that. Furthermore, their latest GDP readings were just positive enough, 0.34% to escape the technicality of recession. They are battling the decline by cutting interest rates for the seventh time in a row. This easing cycle has seen their rates decline by more than 400 basis points, including May’s cut.

Finally, Russia’s economy is shepherded by the fluctuations of natural resource prices on one hand and Vladimir Putin’s political inclinations on the other. The Russian shadow economy remains one of the largest physical cash exchanges in the world. The government recently limited official cash transactions to approximately $20,000 U.S.  Dollars. The political confusion has led to a flight of foreign capital out of the country. Putin’s sincerest desire seems to be the development of a quasi socialist Russia in which the natural resources are shipped abroad by governmentally monitored, semi state controlled companies. Putin then wants access to these revenues to fund his own programs and basically, become the Arab peninsula of natural resources while triangulating politically with Iran and China.

It doesn’t matter whose horse we hitch our wagons to if we’re all headed down the same path. The global balance sheet expansion experiment that hasn’t worked worth a darn in Japan is now being replicated in Europe just as it has been put to work here in the U.S. The world will pull through it and those countries that have been willing to make the tough choices, either through an enlightened electorate body or, the tight fisted hand of an autocratic leader will be the first ones to rebound. Our future, I’m afraid, looks more like the path of Japan’s lost generation than ever.

Corn to Rally using Crude Oil as Analog

The corn futures market was facing unprecedented demand heading into this year’s planting season. The tightest supplies since 1937 and the governmentally mandated ethanol program’s consumption of 40% of this year’s crop put extra pressure on Mother Nature to produce a record crop. We all know that this spring broke the 100-year-old record for rainfall. When we combined this with cold temperatures, flooding along the Mississippi and a southwestern drought, it became obvious that corn acreage would suffer as farmers would be forced to wait for the fields to dry and planted more beans and less corn.

Last week, the USDA issued its acreage report and the markets fell out of bed. Corn acreage planted was reported up 5% from last year at 92.3 million acres. This is the largest planted area since 1944 and second only to 2007. The market sold off nearly 12% in the next two trading sessions as traders, farmers and end line users scratched corn their heads in wonder. Message boards were lit up as people wondered how there could possibly be an increase in acreage when the main question was, “How many acres have been lost due to flood damage and the wettest spring on record?”

The USDA’s accounting methods and history of revision has been brought to the forefront of this discussion. Is the USDA turning into the Federal Reserve System and constructing its data to fit its needs? The report did create a flush in the market and ease food and ethanol prices instantaneously. The flush also washed out most trading and hedge funds on the long side of the market.

The reported acreage versus the expected acreage was one of the biggest surprises on record. One industry analyst, Rich Feltes actually found these numbers to closely match his own forecasts while Carl Zulauf from Ohio State questioned the validity of the USDA’s estimates and points to next week’s USDA Supply and Demand Report for more accurate data. Finally, some of the largest Ohio farmers don’t see any way that the acreage reports can’t be revised sharply lower.

The real issue here is, how do we trade it. The analog I’d like to pass on is crude oil’s decline to $90 per barrel on the news of Saudi Arabia’s production increase combined with waning demand in the face of a recessionary Europe. Crude oil sold off hard on a news event down to what was previously a resistance level for that market – $90 per barrel. Corn sold off on a news event down to a level that was once also considered resistance – $5.50 to $6.00 per bushel. The dynamic in crude oil has changed so that what was once resistance – $90 per barrel, is now support. I believe the same is true in the corn market. I expect the market to bounce around here as traders square their positions but ultimately, I believe the acreage numbers will decline and the acreage that has been planted will not provide the 155 bushel per acre yield expected due to delayed planting.

Ultimately, the tight corn stocks coming into this year combined with the ethanol market and growing global demand will place added stress on this year’s crop, which I believe will be smaller than the most recent USDA predictions. Therefore, this sell off in the corn market should be bought in anticipation of higher prices at harvest.

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk of loss in investing in futures.

Setting of the Rising Sun

Japan’s economic crisis has been slowly trudging down a dead end road since their economy collapsed in the early 90’s. Their insistence on maintaining public programs as status quo has been financed by selling government debt to domestic corporations and private citizens. This has cannibalized both private citizen and corporate savings. This tacit deal has allowed Japan to artificially keep interest rates low based on their captive pool of treasury purchasers. This process of spending more than the government is collecting on an annual basis, combined with sales of treasuries to finance the difference has left them ill prepared to handle this disaster at a time of global economic uncertainty.

While some economists are taking the stance that Japan’s rebuilding is just what they need to get their economy back on the right track, I think it’s quite possible that their economy may be too far gone to save. Furthermore, the scale of their disaster will place a huge burden on developed nations who will be called upon to assist them in the process. Many of these nations, including the United States, have no room for error in their own economic policies. The end result could be a localized natural disaster that triggers a global recession.

Professor Ken Rogoff of Harvard School of Public Policy Research wrote a book in 2009 describing the historical relationship between banking crises and sovereign default. His research states that the average historical tipping point is approximately 4.2 times debt to revenue. Once a country is spending 4.2 times more than it is collecting, default is on its way. John Hayman and Lawrence McDonald, cite individually, that Japan’s expenses outpace revenues by more than 20 times annually. Their debt to GDP ratio, their total assets and earnings minus total debts and liabilities, is around 200%. The third largest economy in the world spends 20 times more per year than it earns and owes twice as much as it’s worth. One note of caution, the United States ranks third in the debt to revenue ratio, behind Japan and Ireland and we owe as much as we’re worth. We will be double negative in 2011 if we don’t change substantially.

Debt will surely rise even further as Japan borrows to rebuild. Standard and Poor’s downgraded Japan’s credit rating to AA in January, prior to the disaster. Japan will have to move to the open market to finance their reconstruction. Their domestic lenders will be busy financing their own rebuilding processes. This will force Japan to pay open market rates for most of their new debt. Open market rates will be AT LEAST 100 basis points and most likely, closer to 200 basis points higher.  The interest payments would total more than 25% of the country’s revenue. Japanese credit default swaps will sky rocket.

The strain of rebuilding Japan will affect us whether we lend financial assistance or not (which we will). The demand of replacing 30% of Japan’s energy source will show up in the price of fossil fuels. Japan currently consumes 5.2% of the world’s oil supply. Replacement of lost energy will add another 1.3 million barrels per day plus the added oil necessary for the reconstruction. Their added demands equal Italy’s total consumption. Add this to the global uncertainty of North African fuel supplies and the added fuel that goes into fighting a third global conflict and we have questionable supplies coupled with increasing demand.

Rising oil prices couldn’t come at a worse time for our economy, which had been gaining some traction. GaveKal research published a chart in which rapidly rising oil prices are overlaid with economies growing more than 2% above their leading indicators, which we are. This has happened 5 times in the last 70 years. Four of the five led directly to recession. The fifth was in 2005 and was ameliorated by the credit and housing booms, which may have delayed the recession until 2007. Rising fuel costs act as a tax on the economy.  The latest housing numbers, the worst ever, blame much of it on high gas prices. Furthermore, while the unemployment rate is stabilizing, the length of time people are unemployed is at an all time high of 37 weeks. Finally, the stock market has returned to its upper 10%, in normalized valuations. Japan’s natural disaster could very well mean this is the zenith of our economic recovery.

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk of loss in investing in futures.

Crack Spread and High Gas Prices

The price of gasoline is holding above $3.00 per gallon and bouncing its way higher. This is happening even though the price of crude oil remains fairly well capped technically at $90 per barrel in spite of the Egyptian conflict and concern over control of the Suez canal. The price of crude oil is also showing fundamental weakness at these levels. The weekly commitment of traders report shows a record net short position by commercial traders who are expecting the market to decline from these prices. Furthermore, the gap in prices between current crude oil and crude for future delivery continues to widen. This is called, “contango.” The wider the spread becomes, the more economic incentive there is to sit on and store the oil. In the face of bearish fundamentals, why is the price of gasoline so stubbornly high?

I believe that gasoline demand as a finished product will outpace demand for raw crude over the coming months. A barrel of crude oil equals 42 U.S. gallons.  The refined barrel produces 2/3 gasoline and 1/3 heating oil depending on the quality of the crude oil input. The difference in price between the combined value of the heating oil and unleaded gasoline produced versus the crude oil input is called the, “crack spread.”

The first part of the answer to our question lies in the global dynamics of this spread. Refineries are currently making about $17.20 per barrel that they refine. This is significantly higher than the $6.50 or, so they averaged throughout 2010.  This added profit margin should incentivize greater refinery capacity utilization. This is where the first disconnect becomes clear. Refineries in the U.S. are only operating at 85% of capacity. Our main foreign suppliers are operating at lower levels than that. China, however, ran at record levels of refinery operation throughout 2010.

The Chinese position demands recognition. China sold approximately 18 million cars in 2010 while the U.S. sold just over 12 million. More importantly, the China Association of Auto Manufacturers claims that 2010’s sales pushed Chinese vehicle ownership up to about 6% of the total Chinese population. By contrast there are approximately 80 cars for every 100 Americans. China’s crude oil imports for January have increased by 33% over last year’s and their 2011 projection is for 5.27 million barrels per day. The Chinese are building a wealth of strategic reserves. It won’t take long for them to compete head to head on the open market for the 8.9 million barrels per day the United States currently consumes.

The second primary contributor to stubbornly high domestic gas prices is the mandatory edition of ethanol to the fuel we use. The government mandate is to increase the ethanol per gallon of fuel to 11% from 8.5% for 2011. U.S. ethanol production is uncompetitive because it is based on corn. Sugar based ethanol, like Brazil’s is more efficiently produced. The government’s energy plan currently imposes a $.54 per gallon tariff on imports while subsidizing the creation of ethanol plants and the corn that goes into them. Gas prices topped $4 per gallon in 2008 and  corn is 20% higher now than it was at this time in 2008.

Asian refineries continue to soak up the global supply of crude oil while our refineries enjoy the profits of the crack spread foreign demand is generating. We are sitting near the seasonal lows in petroleum products and the corn market has yet to build in weather related planting premium. Our low operating capacity combined with higher ethanol content and the rising price of corn could create quite a domestic price shock.

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk of loss in investing in futures.

Is the Commodity Pullback Over?

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk in investing in futures.

The last two weeks have brought considerable pullbacks in major trends including, the stock indexes, metals, grains and energies. We’ve also seen the most convincing U.S. Dollar rally in a year. This seems like a good place to take a step back and assess our positions on the broader markets.First, let’s break down the numbers and the correlations. The march of the commodity rally has been timed by the Dollar’s decline for nearly a year. Over the last month, we’ve seen the Dollar rally about 4% off of its lows. The rally became news over the last three weeks. Looking at a weekly chart, one can see that this is the first time the Dollar has taken out a previous week’s high and not immediately, closed lower the following week. Fortunately, we were able to see that the commercial trader’s momentum by using the Commitment of Traders Report had turned bullish on the Dollar beginning around Christmas time and we finally published a buy signal on January 19th’s COT Signals.The issues facing the commodity markets are twofold. First, the Dollar’s decline made our raw materials cheaper to purchase on the world markets. Secondly, as the commodity markets rallied, Commodity Index Traders, (CIT’s), are forced to buy more futures contracts as the value of their index rises. They are required to maintain a certain percentage of their indexes value allocated to the markets as stated in their prospectus. Consequently, as the commodity markets have declined, they’ve been forced shed contracts to maintain their waiting. Their influence on the markets can be seen in the disproportionate moves in the commodity markets – both on the way up, and on the way down. This is one of the reasons why the Dollar’s 4% rally has created the following declines:6.5% – 8% in the stock market15% give or take, in the grain markets15% in silver10% in platinum5% in gold14% in crude oil13% in unleadedOak, so where do we stand? Throughout this decline, the Commitment of Traders Report has seen commercial traders increasing their rate of buying in the raw materials markets and increased their selling in the stock indexes to correspond with their buying of the Dollar. We have watched the momentum of their purchases increase in the raw materials just as the Commodity Index Traders positions have declined and watched the opposite hold true in the negatively correlated U.S. Dollar vs. stock indexes. This is the classic example of why we follow the momentum of buying or selling within the commercial trader category. We’ve been patiently waiting and waiting with relatively few trading opportunities. As of Friday, we reached oversold levels in many of the markets that still maintained bullish momentum. Beginning on Tuesday’s trade, our proprietary indicator began ticking out buy signals in the energies and metals. This was followed immediately with buy signals 9 other markets. This means that our methodology has kicked out 16 buy signals in the last two days. That’s 16 buy signals out of 36 markets tracked. Finally, I would like to briefly note the background themes over the last month as this has built. We have the Dollar devaluing concerns of the health care bill which were mitigated by Brown’s victory. The equity market concerns over earnings realized through labor market cost savings and finally, the governmental budget issues which are beginning to kick out inflationary signals in our own programs. Our end of January position leaves us with reasonable demand for raw materials and inflationary concerns over the bond market leading to weakness in the stock indexes.

 

CFTC vs. Commodity Index Traders

High grain and energy costs have finally generated enough momentum for the politicians to get involved. This past week, a paper was presented to Congress by Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management. He attributes the current price levels to creating an artificially high floor price due to the asset class categorization of commodities. The long only money that has poured into the markets is creating, “demand shock from a new category of speculators: institutional investors like
corporate and government pension funds, university endowments, and sovereign
wealth funds. He also, matter of factly states, “Index speculators are the primary cause of the recent price
spikes in commodities.”

One statistic that is being roughly, though widely, quoted, is the assumption that demand for exchange traded commodities over the last five years has increased equally between China and Commodity Index Funds. The CFTC is prepared to overhaul its system of reportable trading categories and players to try and pinpoint who is trading what and how much. The purpose is to differentiate between true physical price discovery and speculative froth.

Congress is prepared to assist the CFTC in outing the institutional speculative money by closing the swaps loophole that has allowed the billion dollar funds to enact futures transactions as swaps through their securities brokers (Merril, Goldman, etc.) who then hedge the swap in the futures market. This is how every individual fund has managed to stay off of the CFTC’s Commitment of Traders reports. The commodities are held assets with their broker while the broker executes the hedge and reports the position as their own.

The CFTC and Congress working hand in hand could bring an end to this bubble far quicker than peace in the Middle East or a bountiful global harvest.

Please, feel free to comment or, question. This is a small picture painted in broad brush strokes.

Have a wonderful weekend, Andy.