Commentaries

Now raising intellectual capital

CFTC prepares to recant speculators’ influence

July 29, 2009

johnkempcrop– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –

Like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer before he was burned at the stake for heresy, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) seems about to make a dramatic recantation.

Later today, the Commission will hold the first of three public hearings to discuss whether to impose tougher position limits in energy markets and restrict the availability of hedging exemptions. But it is already preparing to release a report that will accuse speculators of playing a significant role in last year’s oil price spike, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

While it might seem a minor shift in emphasis, it is a radical reversal of the Commission’s previously stated view that there was “no evidence” that investment flows had a material impact on prices. Commission staff have doggedly maintained that physical supply and demand factors could explain all the observed volatility in oil and other commodity prices over the past two years.

The position was stated most forcefully by CFTC Chief Economist Jeffrey Harris in testimony to the House of Representatives’ Agriculture Committee in May 2008 (http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/speechandtestimony/harris-fenton051508.pdf).

It was repeated in September 2008 in the CFTC’s “Staff Report on Swap Dealers and Index Traders” and again this year in a joint report with the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) on commodity regulation for the International Organisation of Securities Organisations (IOSCO).

The Commission’s view has come under pressure from sceptical legislators as the scale of speculative positions in commodity markets and the number of exemptions the Commission and exchanges have granted have been revealed. Congressional anger threatened to derail Gensler’s confirmation. The price of allowing him to take office seems to have been a promise to take a tougher approach.

The CFTC’s position had become politically unsustainable. The climbdown was foreshadowed earlier this year when incoming CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler admitted in a pre-confirmation letter that “rapid growth in commodity index funds was a contributing factor to a bubble in commodities prices that peaked in mid-2008″ and “the expanding number of hedge funds and other investors who were increasing asset allocations to commodities … also put upward pressure on prices”.

But most observers expected it to announce a shift only after the three public hearings planned for July and August, giving the futures industry an opportunity to water-down the conclusions. The Commission’s early move suggests it does not intend to be side-tracked from determined reform by vested interests.

The shift is significant because it changes the question from “whether” to limit the impact of investment money on commodity markets to one of “how”. The Commission has issued a set of questions for the hearings that include a strong presumption the outcome will be some form of tougher and more comprehensive position limits (http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/generalpressreleases/2009/pr5681-09.html).

The move leaves the FSA increasingly exposed. It has not accepted there is a problem in the commodity markets it regulates, let alone agreed that the solution is tougher limits and more stringent regulation. The FSA’s line is still that there is “no evidence” speculation has influenced prices. If the CFTC abandons that position, however, the FSA’s could become intellectually indefensible, and London’s sleepy regulator may come under strong pressure to fall into line.

Comments

First, the FSA’s position is not “intellectually indefensible” just because the CFTC doesn’t agree with it. It is just a different opinion.

Second, I presume when US legislators are concerned about oil price “volaitility” that they are actually concerned with price RISES. One long term solution to oil price rises would be maybe to stop starting wars in the middle East for absolutely no reason at all. On a similar topic, draw a graph of the oil price on the y axis and time on the x axis. Now on the graph, shade in red where there is a republican government and see what you think.

Posted by lionkiller | Report as abusive
 

Of course they are recanting, not that the previous find was wrong, it wasn’t. These people are just political hacks providing cover for the congressional and executive department meddling that will surely come. The Washington crowd we have in charge right now is intent on the destruction of capitalism. Same can also be said for the Bush crowd that just left office. The only difference was the speed of the train and the initiatives they were cramming up our backsides.

Posted by Charles Jernigan | Report as abusive
 

Speculation is increasing prices and would increase further higher when economy rebound,
unless they are controlled, now !

Most Important Tool to control this is:

Making it 50%-100% margin/collateral Money requirement for all Speculative Position ( Not Delivery based Position) on this Commodity Exchanges.

Most of Investment are in done with with Very Low Investment (margin money) requirement which are about 5-10% normaly.

The increase in Margin Call requirement i.e Amount to be Invested to take Speculative Position on Exchange would bring the market to it REAL VALUE !

** This would increase Cost of Investment.
** This would bring the Actual Business (mfg/traders) to Par with this Speculators.

M Chandan
India

Posted by M Chandan | Report as abusive
 

Could you please post your article “Peak Oil is right answer to wrong question” on this blog so that I may pull it to pieces. However, I suggest that you have a look at the energy costs in extracting non-conventional oil or CTL. The production costs (mostly natural gas) are absolutely linked to the oil price, so as oil prices rise, so do production costs, which in turn cause the price to rise some more. A sustainable level of production in the Canadan Tar Sands, even if nuclear is used, would be no more than a paltry 5 million barrels a day (in 20 years) this is because of the water (& other environmental) constraints. The IEA predict peak beyond 2020, but this is only because of a growth in production in “Fields yet to find”. These fields are however unlikely to be developed as the bulk of them are in OPEC and OPEC won’t want to develop them even if they are found.

 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •