by Pops » Tue 19 May 2015, 10:59:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')but it is not possible with tangible/fungible/necessary and especially LARGE oil.
The piece explained how speculation can occur with oil. You chose to reject this explanation, fine. It made sense to me.
It explained nothing. Future trades between two parties are settled at the expiration. One side of the contract loses and the other wins . . . based on the current terminal market price. The current market price marks the trade, not the other way around. All I saw was Morley Safer interviewing playa's.
Pretending that speculation only happens in futures markets and only by speculators ignores the fact that people who negotiate contracts for purchase of physical oil in the future (most oil is NOT bought on the spot market) are just as influenced by sentiment and speculation about the future as you were when, for example, you purchased your solar array.
They don't have perfect knowledge about the future, so they start with the current spot price and make a guess at which way the market is going. It is silly to think they ignore the futures market since it was originally created for actual buyers and sellers. Here is a good description of the scenario:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') NYMEX futures contract is a contract to deliver 1,000 barrels of light sweet crude oil in a certain month to the buyer at Cushing, Oklahoma. There is a direct link between futures prices and the cash price at Cushing. We will illustrate with an example. A producer of crude oil is offered $80 per barrel for 1,000 barrel of oil today. The same producer sees that the futures contract for delivery next month is trading at $85 dollars. Instead of selling at $80 to the refiner the producer could sell a futures contract for delivery next month at $85, store the 1,000 barrels for a month and be $5 better off less the cost of a months storage. The refiner needing the 1,000 barrels of crude today is then in the position that he must offer the producer something closer to the $85 NYMEX price to obtain the crude.
Read more at:
http://snbchf.com/oil/futures-market-br ... ivergence/ Likewise no doubt non-commercial speculation increased when GoldSacks et al recieved exemptions to the the speculative trading rules.
But interestingly, actions to limit speculation coincided precisely with the top of the market.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0290.htm]The London Loophole[/url]
The “London loophole” refers to differences in the oversight of regulated markets in different countries, particularly ICE Futures Europe, which is the United Kingdom's counterpart to America's NYMEX. In general, the CFTC requires foreign exchanges offering futures contracts to U.S. investors to register with it and comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Beginning in 1999, the CFTC began issuing a series of “no-action” letters to ICE Futures Europe which exempted it from CFTC requirements. By 2007, the ICE was trading significant volumes of contracts in WTI crude oil futures; contracts that presumably would have otherwise been traded on the U.S. regulated NYMEX, and subject to that market's speculative position limits.
Responding to concerns over volatile energy prices, in June 2008, the CFTC amended its no-action letter and required ICE Futures Europe to adopt U.S. position limits and accountability levels on its WTI crude oil contracts. In July 2008, the CFTC issued similar requirements for contracts on the Dubai Mercantile Exchange, which had previously received no-action regulatory waivers. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act further addressed the loophole by requiring foreign boards of trade registering in the U.S. to establish certain rules similar to those that apply to U.S. exchanges (Gensler, June 9, 2011 speech to the Sandler O'Neill Global Exchange and Brokerage Conference).