by MrBill » Mon 17 Jul 2006, 05:08:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drew', 'H')ey Mr Bill, you could always put some gold in that portfolio....
of course, it seems not to care about the sentiments to which you referred..
(I noticed that too, yesterday...and it was nice to see my gold carry the weight for my oils, which were kinda flat)
Drew
You probably won't believe me, but during the Russian Crisis in 1998, I was substantially long USD denominated gold at under $300 an ounce (+/- $285?) against my ruble/hyrvnia short local currency position. I only sold my long physical gold position afterwards because it was costing me $1 per ounce per month to roll-it forwards. Still $96 per ounce to roll it for 8-years is a steep enough cost of carry, if back in 1998 you were not bullish commodities, which only started to take-off in 1999/2001.
It is probably me, I am just not a gold bull, and now that I have taken in some of the arguments, especially as linked to money supply growth, well, the price is too high for me to buy here. I would however continue to look for buys on the mining stocks side if I see some bargains. Or if the market retraces again as I did with the oil & gas companies in JUne.
UPDATE: front month Brent crude dropped from $78 to $76 in minutes as headline said Isreal may stop incursions into Lebanon soon, but recovered back to $7725 later when the rumor was denied by Isreal and news of a Isreal F-16 was shot down hit the markets. This overshadowed OPEC demand data showing a decrease in 2007 demand....
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')orld oil demand growth is now expected to rise 1.4 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2006, and by 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent in 2007. The oil cartel said the crude demanded from it will be around 600,000 barrels a day less than last year, if its forecasts come true.
End update.
$80 certainly looks doable in the front month without causing too many problems, so the range rachets up from $70-75 to $75-80 and we have yet to find the price level where behavior is substantially curtailed? Although others like Brad Setser are alluding to reduced or plateaued demand (but I argue it is not transparent enough to be called the start of a trend)....
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Brad, RE DOE inventory nos. on Wednesday. They were quite a big draw of -6 mio bbls of crude and imports down down as well. But these numbers are really hard to reconcile.
Gasoline demand is up 1.7% per year at 9.56 mbpd
Distillate demand (diesel) is up 3.3% per year at 4.12 mbpd
Total demand is down -1.6% to 20.82 mbpd
But gasoline + distillate demand = 13.68 mbpd
While Total demand = 20.82 mbpd or a 7.14 mbpd difference?
Without any sort of breakdown of where that demand destruction is coming from how does one evaluate whether it is real, a plug, temporary, price sensitive, structural change, or what?
I would say that manufacturing may be using less crude in its processes, but the strong gasoline & diesel demand is showing that transport fuels are still strong on the back of an expanding economy and lack of alternatives, even if natural gas, hydro electric, coal and other alternatives may be taking some demand away on the stationary fuel side?
I just do not feel comfortable with the overall numbers to draw conclusions from them?
Written by MrBill on 2006-07-14 05:47:01
Brad Setzer's Blog.... but maybe it is just me being thick? I think realistically we have about $20 in geopolitical risk premium built into the current price of crude oil, and we could see $100 just as easily as $60 if events in the ME escalate far enough that Iran feels compelled to boycott its own exports to defend the interests of Syria/Hizbollah and/or blocks the Strait of Hormuz.
Even without a big interuption, there will be weather and refinery related outages this summer to keep the price premium for spot gasoline high enough to support the complex if demand in the USA continues to expand at 1.5-3.5% for gasoline and diesel. We may see these twin premiums deflate if events in the ME subside AND we make it through the summer driving season without too many hurricanes or refinery fires, while high prices begin to chip away at that marginal demand on the stationary power side where we can and do have some flexibility of supply and alternatives, as opposed to the transport fuel side where this is not yet viable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne of the reasons why, in the absence of such demand disruptions, the economic effects of energy price increases should be manageable can be seen from the following argument. Suppose that somebody was previously paying x dollars for their energy bill, and energy prices then go up by y percent. One option for that person is just to go on doing everything pretty much as they were before, spending now xy more dollars on energy and reducing saving or spending on other products by only that amount. With the U.S. currently using about 7.5 billion barrels of oil each year, a $10/barrel increase amounts to $75 billion, which represents a little over half a percent of our $13 trillion GDP. For comparison, an economic recession typically results in a loss of somewhere around 5% of GDP. Something more than the direct loss of purchasing power is needed to produce a full-scale recession.
Have a good week and will post later. Cheers.