Skip to main content

How speculators exploit commodity markets

I use the word "exploit" because it was part of the original title of John Dizard's recent Financial Times article on speculators gaming the commodity markets.

Specifically, the charge put forth by Dizard's article is that locals on the exchange floors have been betting against commodity index funds by taking advantage of their need to roll contracts over in a timely and predictable manner. This, the article shows, costs money for investors in these types of funds. Says Dizard:

Speculators on the floors of commodities exchanges have been called many things, but sensitive, or solicitous of the interests of public investors, are not among them.

So it shouldn't be surprising that one of the ways they have of profiting from the passively investing public is called "date rape". In the pits, physical or electronic, that means betting against the certainty that commodity index investors' positions are rolled in a mechanistic manner every month, in known patterns on particular days. The phenomenon could be called index roll congestion, or some other euphemism, but as we noted, these are not people who worry about your feelings.

Are speculators unfairly squeezing investors, or are they simply acting out their part by exploiting (in the sense of taking advantage) a telegraphed signal from their counterparty?

Read, "How the speculators profit from investors in commodities", and this response letter, and decide.

The next article from FT's Jeremy Grant also falls in the area of "gaming the trade". His recent report, "Flame blame: how traders may distort energy costs", focuses on the idea that traders in the over-the-counter energy derivatives market are manipulating prices for energy through their low-visibility dealings.

In the following excerpt, Grant explains why American utility groups are upset over the influence OTC traders have on energy prices.

"Over-the-counter" markets have become a powerful feature of the way energy is traded globally - anything from petrol and petroleum futures or natural gas and gas futures to more complex derivatives such as energy swaps. Unlike on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the world's biggest market for oil and natural gas, OTC trading is not conducted in a pit where traders shout orders back and forth and the exchange reports their trades to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the US regulator empowered to oversee on-exchange energy futures.

Instead, participants anywhere in the world negotiate specially tailored contracts with each other - linked by a telephone or computer screen connected to a special platform such as the Intercontinental Exchange, which operates a rapidly growing electronic crude oil futures trading business out of London.

Such ventures have become a popular forum for global trading and account for up to 75 per cent of energy trading in the US - larger than the energy derivatives markets on regular exchanges. Traders are investment banks or, increasingly, hedge funds. But - to the alarm of the Iowa utility group and others - OTC markets have been only lightly regulated since their emergence as a force in energy dealings. Regular exchanges such as Nymex are fully regulated.

Groups like the Iowa utilities and the public gas association are increasingly worried that this means the government is virtually blind to how the OTC markets are operating - and that the prices that consumers pay for energy could be artificially inflated by anonymous traders who operate in cyberspace.

These utility groups are hoping for more regulation over the OTC derivatives markets in the hope that "transparency" might be achieved.

Growth in the over-the-counter derivatives market has been staggering. The print edition of this article was accompanied by an interesting little graph showing the growth of OTC derivatives markets in relation to exchange-traded derivatives. If memory serves, the OTC derivatives market surpassed its exchange-listed counterpart in the early 1990s and has far outpaced it since.

Here is a (PDF file) table from the Bank For International Settlements that gives a snapshot of the OTC derivatives market as of June 2006. The notional amount of all contracts for this period was around 369.9 trillion dollars.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dot-Com Bubble in 1 Chart: InfoSpace

With all the recent talk of a new bubble in the making, thanks in part to the Yellen Fed's continued easy money stance, I thought it'd be instructive to revisit our previous stock market bubble - in one quick chart.

So here's what a real stock market bubble looks like. 

Here's what a bubble *really* looks like. InfoSpace in 1999-2001. $QQQ$BCORpic.twitter.com/xjsMk433H7
— David Shvartsman (@FinanceTrends) February 24, 2015
For those of you who are a little too young to recall it, this is a chart of InfoSpace at the height of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble in 1999-2001. This fallen angel soared to fantastic heights only to plummet back down to earth as the bubble, and InfoSpace's shady business plan, turned to rubble.

As detailed in our post, "Round trip stocks: Momentum booms and busts", InfoSpace rocketed from under $100 a share to over $1,300 a share in less than six months. 

In a pattern common to many parabolic shooting stars, the stock soon peaked and began a…

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL! 

Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com

Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner.  



Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead!

As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter. You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter). 

Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter.

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers. To get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter.

The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series titleof the 21st century this week.

Having won their first Series in 86 years back in 2004, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it?

Quick background: in late 2002, team owner and hedge fund manager,John W. Henry(with his partners)bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $695 million.

Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship.

This brings us to one of my favorite scenes from the 2011 film, Moneyball, in which John W. Henry (played by Arliss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) over to Boston with an excellent job off…