Category Archives: Commodities

a word on gold

Posted on by

Gold has been going up on during what is otherwise a deflationary environment.
With fewer funds to spend, the world seems to upping it’s spending on gold,
with prices and production at or near the highs.

And (who would have thought) a laundry list of
Central Banks have been large buyers,
including the Bank of Greece, of all things.

When Central Banks buy gold,
they pay for it with what I call ‘off balance sheet deficit spending’
They spend by crediting the gold seller’s account,
which is the creation of new balances of their currency.
And they hold the gold as an ‘asset’ on their books as well.
Note that when the Treasury does this it’s called deficit spending,
and what they buy generally is not called an asset.
But functionally it’s all the same thing.

Though Central Banks don’t care much about price or budgets when they do this.

This central bank gold buying does add to aggregate demand, and not that the world isn’t starved for aggregate demand,
but this case it’s working to employ people mining and processing and delivering gold,
along with all the real resources employed to move that gold from one hole in the ground (the gold mine) to another hole in the ground (the central bank’s vault).

Whatever.

My point is the rising gold price is not a sign of a general underlying inflation,
just the tailings of a peculiar set of govt policies and biases.
And also included are our pension funds buying gold with their ‘passive commodity stategies’ I’ve previously discussed.

And it could just as easily reverse should said buying moderate,
and allow gold to fall back to it’s marginal cost of production as it did in 1980.

Or they could all keep buying, and drive up the price to whatever they want to pay.

Share

quick update

Posted on by

Below are various commodity indices.
If China was in fact melting down in the second half of this year due to cut backs in state spending and lending, and that front loaded into the first quarter, it would look something like that before breaking further.

chart

The Australian dollar is likewise falling, indicating shifting circumstances at China’s coal mine as well.

While good for the US consumer and US domestic demand, it’s not good for the earnings of quite a few
major corporations.

It’s also good for the dollar, which is also not good for corporate foreign earnings translations.

It also brings down headline inflation and could help moderate core CPI as well.

And if China doesn’t like US Fed style QE, ECB style QE- buying member nation debt- has to be all the more distasteful,
and could shift their reserve preference away from the euro.

Especially as the ECB check writing escalates much like it did when it supported the banking system’s liquidity. In theory the ECB’s check writing for the national govts could approach the size of the US budget deficit. Somewhat as ECB liquidity support for the euro member banks is analogous to FDIC insurance for the US banking system.

With the US budget deficit chugging along at about 9% of GDP, domestic demand and earnings should be no worse than they were in the first half of this year, as previously discussed, which means equities should be ok in general, though with some names benefiting as others get hurt.

Share

SCM Client Note: S&P Downgrade, Monday Market Action

Posted on by

I tend to agree with this update from Art.
The global equity sell off seems beyond anything related to the S&P downgrade
and more likely China and commodity related. Note the recent fall in the $A for example.

There’s a new post on our site discussing the terrible performance of Asian stock markets this morning, on the first major trading day following Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the U.S. government’s credit rating. The media is widely assuming the selloff in Asia is all related to the downgrade, but I think that’s a pretty flimsy argument. Seems more likely to be related to China and/or Europe. We’ll have a better idea once European markets open. The post is linked and excerpted below. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know. Have a great week!

Asia Down Big: US Downgrade or China Cracking?

Market chatter has been focused on the impact that Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. government’s credit rating on Friday afternoon would have on markets this week. If you follow our blog, you already know where we stand on S&P’s decision—it’s an utter joke. And while other markets have shown some volatility since Friday, it didn’t seem to have much of a negative impact. That’s as we expected.

However, Asian markets sold off brutally at the start of this week’s trading. The knee-jerk media interpretation is that it’s S&P-driven, but that’s not a satisfying explanation in my view. Given how the sell-offs are unfolding, it looks like it could be China-related. The Shanghai stock market is now officially in bear market territory, and smart market watchers have been predicting that China could soon experience a financial crisis, as its system is reportedly quite levered-up and fragile.

If so, this is NOT good for the global economic and risky asset outlooks. Throw one more nut on the bear claw. And China is a big nut—a lot of companies around the world depend on demand out of China, either directly or indirectly, to support current operating performance. Take that down significantly and stock market valuations suddenly look a lot richer.

Of course, it could be Europe too. And we’ve recently seen short-term interest rates go negative, an occurrence that presaged the last global financial crisis. We’re keeping a close eye on things as they unfold.

+++

In other news, Friday saw what appeared to be rather healthy payrolls and consumer credit reports. However, digging below the headlines, temporary hirings (along with measures of temp help demand from other sources) are still falling, and they tend to lead payrolls higher or lower. And underlying trends in consumer confidence indicate that the notable jump in consumer credit, though it could run for another few quarters, should be short-lived.

Work that I did with some of our strategy models over the weekend indicates that recession is going to be almost a sure thing as July and August data is fed in, and we’re currently predicting a start date between February 2012 and January 2013. Also looks, based on NYSE margin data, like the S&P 500 could fall another 10% to 30% from here, with a bear market running from May 2011 (some would date it back to 2007) through as late as mid-2013. A bear market starting roughly half a year before recession would fit historical patterns rather well, unfortunately.

One piece that is arguing emphatically against recession is the Treasury curve, which is still historically steep after last week’s flattening. However, (1) Japan’s first follow-on recession started with the term spread at around 200 basis points (unheard of up until then) and it has had two additional recessions without its yield curve ever inverting, and (2) we simply don’t expect term spreads to have much predictive power in a zero interest rate environment. Interbank funding in the U.S. is still at safe levels, but there are definitely incipient signs of stress. Everything else is on the verge of triggering a recession warning.

Depending upon what unfolds in China, Europe, and the upcoming U.S. austerity negotiations (and the ever-present unknown unknowns), recession could unfold far sooner and faster than almost anyone thinks. Forceful policy actions could do a great deal to stem the tide, but there seems to be almost no political will to do anything, probably due to the mistaken belief that governments everywhere are ‘out of bullets’.

At levels below 900 on the S&P500, we would probably start to lean heavily toward equities—unless a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes significant progress, in which case we’ll recommend cash and long-term Treasuries across all or most of our clients’ accounts.

Best regards,
Art

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC (“SCM”) is a Pennsylvania registered investment advisor that offers discretionary investment management to individuals and institutions. This publication is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy securities, or to engage in any investment strategy. The firm and some of its clients hold some positions that are expected to increase in value if stock markets decline.

Share

Consumer credit up, Friday update

Posted on by

It doesn’t look to me like anything particularly bad has actually yet happened to the US economy.

The federal deficit is chugging along at maybe 9% of US GDP, supporting income and adding to savings by exactly that much, so a collapse in aggregate demand, while not impossible, is highly unlikely.

After recent downward revisions, that sent shock waves through the markets, so far this year GDP has grown by .4% in Q1 and 1.2% in Q2, with Q3 now revised down to maybe 2.0%. Looks to me like it’s been increasing, albeit very slowly. And today’s employment report shows much the same- modest improvement in an economy that’s growing enough to add a few jobs, but not enough to keep up with productivity growth and labor force growth, as labor participation rates fell to a new low for the cycle.

And, as previously discussed, looks to me like H1 demonstrated that corps can make decent returns with very little GDP growth, so even modestly better Q3 GDP can mean modestly better corp profits. Not to mention the high unemployment and decent productivity gains keeping unit labor costs low.

Lower crude oil and gasoline profits will hurt some corps, but should help others more than that, as consumers have more to spend on other things, and the corps with lower profits won’t cut their actual spending and so won’t reduce aggregate demand.

This is the reverse of what happened in the recent run up of gasoline prices.

Japan should be doing better as well as they recover from the shock of the earthquake.

Yes, there are risks, like the looming US govt spending cuts to be debated in November, but that’s too far in advance for today’s markets to discount.

A China hard landing will bring commodity prices down further, hurting some stocks but, again, helping consumers.

A euro zone meltdown would be an extreme negative, but, once again, the ECB has offered to write the check which, operationally, they can do without limit as needed. So markets will likely assume they will write the check and act accordingly.

A strong dollar is more a risk to valuations than to employment and output, and falling import prices are very dollar friendly, as is continuing a fiscal balance that constrains aggregate demand to the extent evidenced by the unemployment and labor force participation rates. And Japan’s dollar buying is a sign of the times. With US demand weakening, foreign nations are swayed by politically influential exporters who do not want to let their currency appreciate and risk losing market share.

The Fed’s reaction function includes unemployment and prices, but not corporate earnings per se. It’s failing on it’s unemployment mandate, and now with commodity prices coming down it’s undoubtedly reconcerned about failing on it’s price stability mandate as well, particularly with a Fed chairman who sees the risks as asymmetrical. That is, he believes they can deal with inflation, but that deflation is more problematic.

So with equity prices a function of earnings and not a function of GDP per se, as well as function of interest rates, current PE’s look a lot more attractive than they did before the sell off, and nothing bad has happened to Q3 earnings forecasts, where real GDP remains forecast higher than Q2.

So from here, seems to me both bonds and stocks could do ok, as a consequence of weak but positive GDP that’s enough to support corporate earnings growth, but not nearly enough to threaten Fed hikes.

Consumer borrowing up in June by most in 4 years

By Martin Crutsinger

May 25 (Bloomberg) — Americans borrowed more money in June than during any other month in nearly four years, relying on credit cards and loans to help get through a difficult economic stretch.

The Federal Reserve said Friday that consumers increased their borrowing by $15.5 billion in June. That’s the largest one-month gain since August 2007. And it is three times the amount that consumers borrowed in May.

The category that measures credit card use increased by $5.2 billion — the most for a single month since March 2008 and only the third gain since the financial crisis. A category that includes auto loans rose by $10.3 billion, the most since February.

Total consumer borrowing rose to a seasonally adjusted annual level of $2.45 trillion. That was 2.1 percent higher than the nearly four-year low of $2.39 trillion hit in September.

Share

Commodity cycle

Posted on by

While ok for US aggregate demand,
Stocks can’t handle falling commodities and a strong dollar near term.

If the commodity cycle has turned
– price signals brought out more supply than demand at those prices-
the sell off can go all the way to the marginal cost of production, and then some.

If supply hasn’t met that criteria,
prices will head back up.

Share

post debt ceiling crisis update

Posted on by

With the debt ceiling extended, the risk of an catastrophic automatic pro cyclical Treasury response, as previously discussed, has been removed.

What’s left is the muddling through with modest topline growth scenario we’ve had all year.

With a 9% budget deficit humming along, much like a year ago when markets began to discount a double dip recession, I see little chance of a serious collapse in aggregate demand from current levels.

It still looks to me like a Japan like lingering soft spot and L shaped ‘recovery’ with the Fed struggling to meet either of its mandates will keep this Fed ‘low for long’, and that the term structure of rates is moving towards that scenario.

With the end of QE, relative supply shifts back to the curve inside of 10 years, which should work to flatten the long end vs the 7-10 year maturities. And the reversal of positions related to hedging debt ceiling risks that drove accounts to sell or get short the long end work to that same end as well.

The first half of this year demonstrated that corporate sales and earnings can grow at reasonable rates with modest GDP growth. That is, equities can do reasonably well in a slow growth, high unemployment environment.

However, a new realization has finally dawned on investors and the mainstream media. They now seem to realize that government spending cuts reduce growth, with no clarity on how that might translate into higher future private sector growth. That puts the macroeconomic picture in a bind. The believe we need deficit reduction to ward off a looming financial crisis where we somehow turn into Greece, but at the same time now realize that austerity means a weaker economy, at least for as far into the future as markets can discount. This has cast a general malaise that’s been most recently causing stocks and interest rates to fall.

With crude oil and product prices leveling off, presumably because of not so strong world demand, the outlook for inflation (as generally defined) has moderated, as confirmed by recent indicators. As Chairman Bernanke has stated, commodity prices don’t need to actually fall for inflation to come down, they only need to level off, providing they aren’t entirely passed through to the other components of inflation. And with wages and unit labor costs, the largest component of costs, flat to falling, it looks like the the higher commodity costs have been limited to a relative value shift. Yes, standards of living and real terms of trade have been reduced, but it doesn’t look like there’s been any actual inflation, as defined by a continuous increase in the price level.

However, the market seem to have forgotten that the US has been supplying crude oil from its strategic petroleum reserves, which will soon run its course, and I’ve yet to see indications that Lybia will be back on line anytime soon to replace that lost supply. So it is possible crude prices could run back up in September and inflation resume. For the other commodities, however, the longer term supply cycle could be turning, where supply catches up to demand, and prices fall towards marginal costs of production. But that’s a hard call to make, until after it happens.

With the debt ceiling risks now behind us, the systemic risk in the euro zone is now back in the headlines. Unlike the US, where the Treasury is back to being counter cyclical (unemployment payments can rise should jobs be lost and tax revenues fall), the euro zone governments remain largely pro cyclical, as market forces demand deficits be cut in exchange for funding, even as economies weaken. This means a slowdown to that results in negative growth and rising unemployment can accelerate downward, at least until the ECB writes the check to fund counter cyclical deficit spending.

China had a relatively slow first half, and the early indicators for the second half are mixed. Manufacturing indicators looked weak, while the service sector seemed ok. But it’s both too early to tell and the numbers can’t be trusted, so the possibility of a hard landing remains.

Japan is recovering some from the earthquake, but not as quickly as expected, and there has yet to be a fiscal response large enough to move that needle. And with global excess capacity taking up some of the fall off in production, Japan will be hard pressed to get it back.

Falling crude prices and weak global demand softening other commodity prices, looks dollar friendly to me. And, technically, my guess is that first QE and then the debt ceiling threats drove portfolios out of the dollar and left the world short dollars, which is also now a positive for the dollar.

The lingering question is how US aggregate demand can be this weak with the Federal deficit running at about 9% of GDP. That is, what are the demand leakages that the deficit has only partially offset. We have the usual pension fund contributions, and corporate reserves are up with retained earnings/cash reserves up. Additionally, we aren’t getting the usual private sector borrowing to spend on housing/cars as might be expected this far into a recovery, even though the federal deficit spending has restored savings of dollar financial assets and debt to income ratio to levels that have supported vigorous private sector credit expansions in past cycles.

Or have they? Looking back at past cycles it seems the support from private sector credit expansions that ‘shouldn’t have happened’ has been overlooked, raising the question of whether what we have now is the norm in the absence of an ‘unsustainable bubble.’ For example, would output and employment have recovered in the last cycle without the expansion phase of sub prime fiasco? What would the late 1990’s have looked like without the funding of the impossible business plans of the .com and y2k credit expansion? And I credit much of the magic of the Reagan years to the expansion phase of what became the S and L debacle, and it was the emerging market lending boom that drove the prior decade. And note that Japan has not repeated the mistake of allowing the type of credit boom they had in the 1980’s, accounting for the last two decades of no growth, and, conversely, China’s boom has been almost entirely driven by loans from state owned banks with no concern about repayment.

So my point is, maybe, at least over the last few decades, we’ve always needed larger budget deficits than imagined to sustain full employment via something other than an unsustainable private sector credit boom? And with today’s politics, the odds of pursuing a higher deficit are about as remote as a meaningful private sector credit boom.

So muddling through seems here to stay for a while.

Share

Comments on Chairman Bernanke’s testimony

Posted on by

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:55 AM, wrote:
>   
>   I see Bernanke is speaking your language now…
>   

Yes, a bit, but but as corrected below:

“DUFFY: We had talked about the QE2 with Dr. Paul. When — when you buy assets, where does that money come from?

BERNANKE: We create reserves in the banking system which are just held with the Fed. It does not go out into the public.

Not exactly, as all govt spending is done by adding reserves to member bank reserve accounts. Reserve accounts are held by member banks as assets, and so these balances are as much ‘out into the public’ as any.

What doesn’t change is net financial assets, as QE debits securities accounts at the Fed and credits reserve accounts.

But yes, spending is in no case operationally constrained by revenues.

DUFFY: Does it come from tax dollars, though, to buy those assets?

BERNANKE: It does not.

Operationally he is correct, and in this case, to the extent QE does not add to aggregate demand, he is further correct. In fact, to the extent that QE removes interest income from the economy, it actually acts as a tax on the economy, and not as a govt expenditure.

However, and ironically, I submit he believes that QE adds to aggregate demand, and therefore ‘uses up’ some of the aggregate demand created by taxation, and therefore, in that sense, it would be taxpayer dollars that he’s spending.

DUFFY: Are you basically printing money to buy those assets?

BERNANKE: We’re not printing money. We’re creating reserves in the banking system.

Technically correct in that he’s not printing pieces of paper.

But he is adding net balances to private sector accounts, which, functionally, is what is creating new dollars which is generally referred to as ‘printing money’

All govt spending can be thought of as printing dollars, taxing unprinting dollars, and borrowing shifting dollars from reserve accounts to securities accounts.

DUFFY: In your testimony — I only have 20 seconds left — you talked about a potential additional stimulus. Can you assure us today that there is going to be no QE3? Or is that something that you’re considering?

BERNANKE: I think we have to keep all the options on the table. We don’t know where the economy is going to go. And if we get to a point where we’re like, you know, the economy — recovery is faltering and — and we’re looking at inflation dropping down toward zero or something, you know, where inflation issues are not relevant, then, you know, we have to look at all the options.

DUFFY: And QE3 is one of those?

BERNANKE: Yes.

Very hesitant, as it still looks to me like there’s an tacit understanding with China that there won’t be any more QE, as per China’s statement earlier today.

PAUL: I hate to interrupt, but my time is about up. I would like to suggest that you say it’s not spending money. Well, it’s money out of thin air. You put it into the market. You hold assets and assets aren’t — you know, they are diminishing in value when you buy up bad assets.

But very quickly, if you could answer another question because I’m curious about this. You know, the price of gold today is $1,580. The dollar during these last three years was devalued almost 50 percent. When you wake up in the morning, do you care about the price of gold?

BERNANKE: Well, I pay attention to the price of gold, but I think it reflects a lot of things. It reflects global uncertainties. I think people are — the reason people hold gold is as a protection against what we call “tail risk” — really, really bad outcomes. And to the extent that the last few years have made people more worried about the potential of a major crisis, then they have gold as a protection.

PAUL: Do you think gold is money?

BERNANKE: No. It’s not money.

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Even if it has been money for 6,000 years, somebody reversed that and eliminated that economic law?

BERNANKE: Well, you know, it’s an asset. I mean, it’s the same — would you say Treasury bills are money? I don’t think they’re money either, but they’re a financial asset.

Right answer would have been gold used to be demanded/accepted as payment of taxes, which caused it to circulate as money.

Today the US dollar is what’s demanded for payment of US taxes, so it circulates as money.

In fact, if you try to spend a gold coin today, in most parts of the world you have to accept a discount to spot market prices to get anyone to take it.

PAUL: Well, why do — why do central banks hold it?

BERNANKE: Well, it’s a form of reserves.

Yes, much like govt land, the strategic petroleum reserve, etc.

PAUL: Why don’t they hold diamonds?

Some probably do.

BERNANKE: Well, it’s tradition, long-term tradition.

PAUL: Well, some people still think it’s money.”

“CLAY: Has the Federal Reserve examined what may happen on another level on August 3rd if we do not lift the debt ceiling?

BERNANKE: Yes, we’ve — of course, we’ve looked at it and thought about making preparations and so on. The arithmetic is very simple. The revenue that we get in from taxes is both irregular and much less than the current rate of spending. That’s what it means to have a deficit.

So immediately, there would have to be something on the order of a 40 percent cut in outgo. The assumption is that as long as possible the Treasury would want to try to make payments on the principal and interest of the government debt because failure to do that would certainly throw the financial system into enormous disarray and have major impacts on the global economy.

So this is a matter of arithmetic. Fairly soon after that date, there would have to be significant cuts in Social Security, Medicare, military pay or some combination of those in order to avoid borrowing more money.

If in fact we ended up defaulting on the debt, or even if we didn’t, I think, you know, it’s possible that simply defaulting on our obligations to our citizens might be enough to create a downgrade in credit ratings and higher interest rates for us, which would be counterproductive, of course, since it makes the deficit worse.

But clearly, if we went so far as to default on the debt, it would be a major crisis because the Treasury security is viewed as the safest and most liquid security in the world. It’s the foundation for most of our financial — for much of our financial system. And the notion that it would become suddenly unreliable and illiquid would throw shock waves through the entire global financial system.

And higher interest rates would also impact the individual American consumer. Is that correct?

BERNANKE: Absolutely. The Treasury rates are the benchmark for mortgage rates, car loan rates and all other types of consumer rates.”

“BERNANKE: A second problem is the housing market. Clearly, that’s an area that should get some more attention because that’s been one of the major reasons why the economy has grown so slowly. And I think many of your colleagues would agree that the tax code needs a look to try to improve its efficiency and to promote economic growth as well.”

While housing isn’t growing as in the past, housing or anything else is only a source of drag if it’s shrinking.

It’s not that case that if housing were never to grow we could not be at levels of aggregate demand high enough to sustain full employment levels of sales and output.

We’d just be doing other things than in past cycles.

G. MILLER: Well, the problem I had with the Fannie-Freddie hybrid concept was the taxpayers were at risk and private sector made all the profits.

BERNANKE: That’s right.

That’s the same with banking in general with today’s insured deposits, a necessary condition for banking. Taxpayers are protected by regulation of assets. The liability side is not the place for market discipline, as has been learned the hard way over the course of history.

G. MILLER: That — that’s unacceptable. What do you see the barriers to private capital entering mortgage lending (inaudible) market for home loans would be?

BERNANKE: Well, currently, there’s not much private capital because of concerns about the housing market, concerns about still high default rates. I suspect, though, that, you know, when the housing market begins to show signs of life, that there will be expanded interest.

I think another reason — and go back what Mr. Hensarling was saying — is that the regulatory structure under which securitization, et cetera, will be taking place has not been tied down yet. So there’s a lot of things that have to happen. But I don’t see any reason why the private sector can’t play a big role in the housing market securitization, et cetera, going forward.”

As above, bank lending is still a public/private partnership, presumably operating for public purpose.

See my Proposals for the Banking System, Treasury, Fed, and FDIC (draft)

And there’s no reason securitization has to play any role. Housing starts peaked in 1972 at 2.6 million units with a population of only 200 million, with only simple savings and loans staffed by officers earning very reasonable salaries and no securitization.

“CARSON: However, banks are still not lending to the public and vital small businesses. How, sir, do you plan on, firstly, encouraging banks to lend to our nation’s small businesses and the American public in general?

And, secondly, as you know, more banks have indeed tightened their lending standards than have eased them. Does the Fed plan to keep interest rates low for an extended period of time. Are the Fed’s actions meaningless unless banks are willing to lend?

CARSON: And, lastly, what are your thoughts on requiring a 20 percent down for a payment? And do you believe that this will impact homeowners significantly or — or not at all?

BERNANKE: Well, banks — first of all, they have stopped tightening their lending standards, according to our surveys, and have begun to ease them, particularly for commercial and industrial loans and some other types of loans.

Small-business lending is still constrained, both because of bank reluctance but also because of lack of demand because they don’t have customers or inventories to finance or because they’re in weakened financial condition, which means they’re harder to qualify for the loan.

Right, sales drive most everything, including employment

“PETERS: Do you see some parallels between what happened in the late ’30s?

BERNANKE: Well, it’s true that most historians ascribe the ’37- ’38 recession to premature tightening of both fiscal and monetary policy, so that part is correct.

Also, Social Security was initiated, and accounted for ‘off budget’, and, with benefit payments initially near 0, the fica taxes far outstripped the benefits adding a sudden negative fiscal shock.

The accountants realized their mistake and Social Security was put on budget where it remains and belongs.

I think every episode is different. We have to look, you know, at what’s going on in the economy today. I think with 9.2 percent unemployment, the economy still requires a good deal of support. The Federal Reserve is doing what we can to provide monetary policy accommodation.

But as we go forward, we’re going to obviously want to make sure that as we support the recovery that we also keep an eye on inflation, make sure that stays well controlled.

Share

Saudi crude pricing

Posted on by

Setting price and letting quantity adjust:

Daily Oil Note: OSPs a Critical Piece in the Supply Puzzle


A key source of market uncertainty is how much oil Saudi Arabia will produce and export over the next few months. We see reports that Saudi Aramco recently offered additional cargoes to term buyers, but reportedly many declined because pricing was unattractive versus alternatives. Tanker bookings also do not point to a substantial ramp up in Middle East liftings in coming weeks. In fact, they are running well behind the pace in June.

Share

DJ OPEC Secretary General: Sees No Good Reason For IEA Oil

Posted on by

Looks like some OPEC infighting.

The only way OPEC could block Saudi attempts to lower price would be production cuts beyond the Saudi’s ability to increase supply.

In the past, OPEC has never actually been able to do that, as apart from the Saudis the rest pretty much always pump flat out even after they agree to cut.

I suspect the Saudis and Obama also know Lybia will be back online soon with another 1 million barrels a day make it that much more problematic for the rest of OPEC to cut sufficiently to get the price up.

And the US and the Saudis probably also know world demand is falling short of forecasts, or they probably wouldn’t have undertaken the price cutting actions.

*DJ OPEC Secretary General: Sees No Good Reason For IEA Oil Release
*DJ OPEC Secy Genl: Wants Immediate Cessation Of Stocks Release
*DJ OPEC President Ready To Call Emergency Meeting If Needed
*DJ OPEC President: Hopes Oil Market Won’t Warrant Emergency Meeting

Share

Crude prices

Posted on by

Looks like the Saudis left the OPEC meeting saying they wanted crude 80-90 and didn’t need OPEC to do it.

The Saudis realize that to stay in power they need Obama’s support.

This latest move is an understanding with Obama to give him all the credit and keep the fact that the Saudis are price setters out of the headlines.

And there is probably an understanding that the Saudis will keep the price low enough so the US can later refill the reserve at the lower prices.

Share