Share

How to Burn the Speculators

by: James K. Galbraith  |  Mother Jones

photo
(Photo: The New York Times)

Why is the price of oil so high? Because the Bush administration did to the commodities market what it did to housing.

    Whenever economies sour, politicians blame speculators. But on occasion, they are right to do so. Speculators did wreak havoc in 1630s Holland, 1720s France, and in the American stock market in 1929. That crash led to the Great Depression and 60 years of tight controls on speculation. Now, thanks to our 30-year infatuation with free markets, the controls are off, and the mad gamblers are at it again. Yesterday's burst bubble was housing; today's expanding ones are energy and food. True, we have major long-term energy problems that cannot be laid at the feet of speculators. To avoid catastrophic global warming, we will be obliged to reengineer the country, from housing to transport to forests, and also to develop and export the technologies required for the rest of the world to do likewise. Eight years of George W. Bush's policies have made this much harder, and during that time the world may have passed "peak oil"-that moment when half the recoverable reserves of conventional oil have been drained and burned-so that from now on short supplies will be endemic. Meanwhile, demand grows, notably from China and India, which account for nearly 40 percent of the world's population.

    But do supply and demand explain oil prices at $140 per barrel, with voices from Goldman Sachs projecting $200 for next year (a figure that would push gas prices above $5 per gallon) and Russia's Gazprom saying $250, despite a likely US recession? Do they explain the historic price hikes in rice, corn, and wheat, leading to hunger in the developing world? Do they explain the absolutely stratospheric price of copper? No they do not.

    Yes, Virginia, speculators can affect the price-if they are large and relentless enough to dominate a market, and especially if they can store the commodity and keep it off the market as the price rises.

    Futures markets exist to permit commercial interests to hedge their business risks. For a fee, a farmer (or oil producer) can put a floor under the price at which his product will sell. The forward price is normally a bit lower than the current price, but the contract protects the farmer from a catastrophic price slump-such as may occur in (for instance) bumper years. Speculators buy the futures on the chance that the market price will be substantially higher. They make a respectable profit on what is in effect an insurance function, and a killing in years of drought, flood, and war.

    This system works reasonably well so long as speculators do not actually control or manipulate prices. For if they can drive prices way up, they can obviously cash in while the farmer (who has presold his crop) cannot. Strict regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) is supposed to prevent that.

    But thanks to Phil "nation of whiners" Gramm-the former Texas senator who was until recently John McCain's top economic adviser (see "Foreclosure Phil")-futures market regulation went to hell. Under the "Enron loophole" pushed through by Gramm in 2000, energy futures were allowed to escape all federal and state regulation. Gramm embedded that loophole in a surprise 262-page rider, drafted at the behest of Wall Street and Enron, in an 11,000-page appropriations bill on a Friday evening two days after the Supreme Court handed down its Bush v. Gore ruling and as Congress was rushing home for Christmas. In a separate bit of absurdity, in January 2006, the Intercontinental Exchange (ice) of Atlanta, which trades benchmark US oil futures (West Texas Intermediate or wti), came to be treated by the cftc as a British market (the "London loophole") so that US regulators do not even track what is going on. (Even more surreal, the cftc was going to allow trades of US oil futures on terminals located in America to be "regulated" in Dubai; political pressure put an end to that idea in July.)

    Worse still, Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 also opened the way for growth in deregulated "credit default swaps"-a way in which financial institutions "insured" that bad loans would not cause them losses. This, combined with other deregulatory moves by the cftc, broadened the "swaps loophole," an enormous backdoor into the commodities markets, basically permitting speculators making bets off the commodities exchanges to be treated as "commercial interests"-like say, farmers-and hence avoid the scrutiny (including limits on the size of their bets) normally applied to financial players. Thus today, when officials like Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson say that speculation is not a factor in the commodity markets, they're not counting hedge funds and investment banks as speculators-even though that's what they really are.

    According to Senate testimony on June 3 by Michael Greenberger, who used to head the cftc's division of trading and markets, if swaps were properly labeled, about 70 percent of the oil futures now traded on the New York exchanges would be deemed speculative, not commercial, and subjected to a high degree of regulatory scrutiny.

    Okay, let's think this through. First, vast sums of money are flowing through regulatory loopholes into the commodities markets, particularly for oil. Second, spot prices (those charged for immediate sale) in all commodity markets have been soaring. In particular, Americans now pay an average of $4 per gallon for gas. Is it possible that these two events are unconnected? Is it possible that Paulson-former ceo of Goldman Sachs-is right when he says that the price of oil is being driven mainly by supply and demand?

    No, and Senate testimony in May by Michael W. Masters, a hedge fund manager, illustrates why not. Masters points to the spectacular rise of "index speculation," in which pension funds and other investors invest in the commodities futures markets according to formulas created by, among others, (guess who?) Goldman Sachs. Index speculation investments have risen from $13 billion to more than $250 billion since 2003. Masters calculates that the speculative demand for Texas oil futures from this source is now five times the actual 2003 stockpile (the baseline he used); for corn and aluminum the figure is about nine times; for silver it's a phenomenal fourteen times. There is of course no way that the orders represented by all those futures contracts could be met.

    So the futures price goes up. As it does, supplies actually disappear. For instance, copper expert Frank Veneroso believes that 800,000 tons of copper has been hidden away in China, waiting to emerge closer to the market top. For Saudi Arabia and perhaps Russia the matter is simpler: Oil stays in the ground, and the oil not sold boosts the price of the oil that is. As current prices soar, the index speculators obey their computer programs, which tell them to pour still more money into the commodity markets.

    There may be a further element at play, according to an April speech by Attorney General Michael Mukasey: "International organized criminals control significant positions in the global energy and strategic-materials markets. They are expanding their holdings in these sectors, which corrupts the normal functioning of these markets and may have a destabilizing effect on US geopolitical interests." To whom exactly Mukasey is referring, he does not say. But that organized criminal interests have the motive, means, and opportunity-handed to them by Phil Gramm-to destabilize the world energy markets seems quite clear.

    On these matters, there is a quick fix. Under pressure, the cftc is closing the London loophole. Early in the next administration, Congress must slam shut the Enron and swaps loopholes. Index speculation should be curtailed by making such strategies illegal for regulated pension funds and by imposing limits for all traders on how much they can buy or sell. Investment banks using credit default swaps to enter the commodities markets should be regulated to the standards that apply to speculators, not as if they were heating-oil vendors hedging against a warm winter. Investigations now under way at the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Justice should be intensified, and criminal manipulation of the markets, if detected, should be punished.

    Finally, the federal government should burn the oil speculators by selling up to 4 million barrels a day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And as economist Tom Palley has pointed out, consumers can help too. An awful lot of gas is stored in cars. If people stop topping off and make do with half a tank, they'll back up supply and lower demand. It's a brilliant suggestion and definitely worth a try.

    And while this is being done, and especially if all this smoke leads to fire, someone should ask, "What did Henry Paulson know, and when did he know it?"

    --------

    James K. Galbraith is a contributing writer for Mother Jones.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

  

»


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

You can always trust an

You can always trust an economist to be unaware of natural limits to resources - whether the economist is liberal or conservative ... sure, there's speculation, but world oil production has also been flat for three years. We are extracting 1,000 barrel a second, and it is extremely difficult and expensive to keep this flow rate going so people in the rich countries don't have to conserve or change their behaviors. As we pass Peak Oil, it is likely the public response will be more focused on scapegoats than honesty - the right wing will blame the Arabs, and the left wing will blame Big Oil and speculators. Neither will admit that the Earth is round and therefore there are natural limits to endless growth on a finite planet. If Peak Oil was more in the public consciousness, you wouldn't see the spectacle of the Democrats supporting more oil drilling in places that have little - or no - oil to extract. I hope that future generations - those who survive our mess - will be able to look back at our time and realize that our dysfunctional psychology led to the catastrophe.

In Business as Usual when

In Business as Usual when Congress is supposed to be watching the store they are in fact looting it while they "embedded that loophole in a surprise 262-page rider, drafted at the behest of Wall Street and Enron, in an 11,000-page appropriations bill on a Friday evening two days after the Supreme Court handed down its Bush v. Gore ruling and as Congress was rushing home for Christmas." No Congressman can act alone. I hope they had a good Christmas.

As a long time futures

As a long time futures trader, 30 years, I’ve watched a whole lot of speculative bubbles be built only to pop and bring the market back to a greater sense of equilibrium. These can be both profitable and costly affairs but they are inherent in the credit based fractional reserve banking system we live in, under the control from the activities of the Fed. While I have no real issues with any of the reforms you suggest are lacking I don’t think for a minute they will have an impact on markets and there price activities, which have and always will be subject to sentiment stemming from our two most compelling emotions, greed and fear. And I am sorry to say the last 2 ideas you mention regarding the SPR and only filling up half way, well it is laughable to think they will make an impact on the price of oil for more than a day at best. HOWEVER, you miss the root of the problem. These commodities you have mentioned and discussed have added a dual purpose over the last 15 years or so. They are now an asset class. They are a store for value against a depreciating currency. In normal economic conditions the cost of carry, IE the interest paid to carry open positions of these commodities would add an additional risk factor which has not been present. The cost of carry (also called contango) has been made so low it has virtually eliminated the risk. Lower my risk and I will speculate. Depreciate my store of value and I will look for another one. By maintaining rates at historically low levels for extended periods of time, while making credit easily available on terms more favorable than the rate, by increasing leverage factors to the point of NO MONEY DOWN, the Fed has or should I say had created an environment that one could hardly resist playing in. There are trillions of dollars floating around the world all day every day looking for a home that offers the best return and the only thing that can stop it, or should I say slow it down is to increase the risk to play. And from what I can tell, the Fed, your friendly PRIVATE banker has more money to make when we borrow to play and stay deeper in debt. The fact is one man named Evelyn Rothschild holds somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-75 TRILLION bucks, half the world's wealth. The Forbes 500 are chumps to who really controls the puppet strings on this stage. Bottom line is until we get rid of the Fed, note Lincoln tried, Kennedy tried, see what it got them, but until the Fed is removed as our central bank and the Treasury takes over the function of printing and redeeming currency we will forever be in debited to the Bankers and there will be forever, speculative bubbles that will come and go. And we will continue to transfer wealth from the hands of weak to the hands of the strong. Just remember if your gonna play and dance when the music comes on, your gonna need to find a seat when it stops.

A superb article by

A superb article by Galbraith. M. King Hubbert, the geophysicist who formulated the Peak Oil model in 1956, died in 1989. His concerns are well founded, but those realities have nothing to do with today's Oil/commodities price bubbles. Several points of clarification: Firstly, the definition of Peak Oil is the point of maximum extraction--which is at some point an inevitability--given that all resources have some finite limit. However, the problem referred to as Peak Oil should actually be called the exhaustion of Cheap Oil. Most of the total known oil reserves are expensive heavy oil, locked in shale or tar sands. We're nowhere close to exhausting this resource--not to say that we should, as the environmental/climate costs would be enormous. The real problems with oil supply, over at least the next century, relate only to the fundamental pricing problems of the capitalist market system. The most fatal flaw is the externalization of environmental costs; due to this failure, the market decisions by all parties are fundamentally irresponsible--because such irresponsibilities are effectively subsidized by the failure of market pricing to include full costs. A second enormous problem is the absurd hysteria at this time concerning so-called Peak Oil--actually Cheap Oil. It's entirely preposterous that society should be bothered about this artificial 'crisis'--given the availability of substantially larger reserves--albeit at higher prices. Again, it's strictly a problem of market pricing--which entirely fails to attribute the intrinsic value of the energy resource--and merely covers extraction costs and profits. Regarding the financial arguments, one important point should be noted. The loopholes, as so well described by Galbraith, that have been so instrumental to the speculation and profiteering, were of course created specifically to facilitate such larceny on the grandest of scales. The politicians who provided the enabling legislation--and pretended not to understand the clear warnings by such experts as Michael Greenburger et al. every time public concern obliged them to pretend to care about these problems--the political puppets were merely serving their benefactors and masters, the moneyed interests of Wall St and K St. Clearly Wall St and the financial oligarchs control the appointments to all major financial positions--the heads of Treasury, the Fed, and the supposed regulatory agencies. Hence, one must recognize that the loopholes, the failure to close them, and the failure to regulate, are not at all due to flaws within the legislative process, or misguided faith in deregulation; these are the primary architectural elements of the predatory system designed to facilitate the looting of the economy--as the primary objective of the financial elite.

I think releasing some of

I think releasing some of the reserves in little bits would deter speculation somewhat. The thing is that future's markets are based on some pretty specific calculations and when a new variable is introduced it throws the whole calculation off. If you're invested $100k in oil and the price suddenly drops (or rises) by 1/2 a cent, you just lost $50k. That's an estimation, of course (and maybe even an exaggeration) . I haven't played with futures charts in ages and don't remember all of the details. I just remember that a sudden storm destroying an orange crop can make or break a person who invested too much (or sold short too much) in orange juice.