by lakeweb » Wed 09 Nov 2005, 22:48:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DigitalCubano', 'T')hanks for posting the links, Lakeweb. In response to what you wrote, I have one immediate question that I've been tossing around for a while. Certainly, it makes sense in any case that oil prices will fluctuate as demand fluctuates, but I have always been curious as to whether any sort of "memory" gets priced into commodities if one of the pricing issues is fundamental scarcity (i.e. reserve fears instead of production constraints)?
Hi DC,
Thank you.
First, I'm by no means well rounded where this is concerned. Call me an armchair economist. But I'll do my best.
Futures markets are about anticipation. So the 'memory' is already built in. They do work very well at this. Take the last 7 years from the Asian financial crisis. As the demand/capacity gap diminished the market anticipated a forward value for oil. The net result was to finance new capacity. That is happening now. The price of oil grew at an exceptional rate because the decline in older/cheaper production had to be factored in. I think the real question is if, and how much overshot, the market is financing new production.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DigitalCubano', 'F')or example, let's assume that next summer demand pushes oil to some really high level such that "demand destruction" occurs, bringing the price down. Let's also assume that traders are convinced that this is a fundamental supply issue and that they are convinced that the production rate has "peaked." Won't this knowledge limit the lower bound at which future prices settle? In other words, prices might still fluctuate, but wouldn't there still be an upward trend because of the increased risk of supply/demand imbalance? I can't imagine that the markets just "forget" and discount previous imbalances.
So far we have not had any hyperbolic price in oil. (And that can be disputed.) But what I mean by that is the price of liquid fuels are still relatively cheap. To get demand destruction would require oil at hundreds of dollars a barrel. Yes, I think that would mean an anticipation of a supply/demand imbalance. But because demand can't grow anymore than the infrastructure that creates the demand, it may lag new production that is well financed at these prices for oil.
Demand destruction is new territory for the market. It means that production is no longer flexible.
I don't know how glib I am at saying oil could see $45/bbl. It is based on the assumption that something doesn't go wrong. A terrorist attack that creates a major disruption. Iran could start lobbing sunburns into the gulf out of unsubstantiated fear. (We won't go to war with Iran just for this reason. {Assumes rational thinking by the powers that be}). Word gets out that Aramco was very wrong about Gharwar.
Best, Dan.